razprave (pdf) - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU
razprave (pdf) - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU
razprave (pdf) - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Ljubljana 2005 ● Posebna številka / Special IssueKOSOO O OK OKKOSOVEL’S POETICSUredili / Edited byJanez VrečkoBoris A. NovakDarja Pavlič
pkn, letnik 28, posebna številka, ljubljana, junij 200582.091(05)
Avgust Černigoj: Srečko Kosovel (linorez), 1926
KOSOO POKUrediliJanez VrečkoBoris A. NovakDarja Pavlič
VSEBINBoris A. Novak:kosovel, velik pesnik in slab verzifikator ................................................ 7Darja Pavlič:kosovel in moderna poezija: anali<strong>za</strong> podobja ........................................ 19Bożena Tokarz:Ideja integralov v Kosovelovi poeziji ..................................................... 35Janez Vrečko:Srečko Kosovel in evropska avantgarda ................................................. 45Marko Juvan:Kosovel in hibridnost modernizma .................................................... 57Marijan Dović:Kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija »odsotnega« avtorja ........................................................ 731Matevž Kos:Kosovel in nihilizem: poskus konstruktivne destrukcije ........................ 81Alenka Jovanovski:Kosovelovi konsi: nelahko ravnotežje med subjektomin družbo ................................................................................................. 91Katia Pizzi:»Quale triestinità?«: glasovi in odmevi iz italijanskega Trsta .............. 103Darja Betocchi:analogije med poezijo s. kosovela in c. reboreoziroma ali obstaja italijanski ekspresionizem? ................................... 115
Uredniški predgovorPesnik Srečko Kosovel (1904–1926) je ustvaril nenavadno bogat opus, predenje tragično umrl, star komaj dvaindvajset let. Njegova poetika sega odmehkih, poznosimbolističnih pesmi, v katerih opeva lepoto svojega rojstnegaKrasa, do radikalnih eksperimentov s pesniškim jezikom, ki so primerljivi sfuturističnimi, konstruktivističnimi in dadaističnimi; sega od upovedovanjaglobokega in bolečega eksistencialnega izkustva do neposrednih političnihsporočil, ki naznanjajo bratstvo vseh ljudi in stvari pod zvezdami.V počastitev stoletnice pesnikovega rojstva sta Slovensko društvo <strong>za</strong><strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong> ter Oddelek <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong> in literarnoteorijo Filozofske fakultete pripravila simpozij, ki je potekal septembra2004 v okviru mednarodnega pisateljskega srečanja Vilenica. Zahvaljujemose organi<strong>za</strong>torjem tega pomembnega dogodka, da so drugič <strong>za</strong>povrstjo vLipico, na Kras, kjer se vsako jesen zberejo mojstri pesniške besede, gostoljubnopovabili literarne znanstvenike. Tehtni prispevki in živahna razprava,ki jim je sledila, so potrdili naše prepričanje, da je Kosovelova poetikavznemirljiva, aktualna in vredna poglobljenih analiz. Razpravljavci so seprijazno odzvali na vabilo, naj svoje prispevke razširijo in predelajo <strong>za</strong>objavo v tematski številki revije Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>. Za to, da je tazdaj pred nami, so poleg piscev znanstvenih razprav <strong>za</strong>služni tudi sodelavci,ki bi se jim radi enako toplo <strong>za</strong>hvalili: Katarina Jerin in Ana Jelnikarsta v angleščino prevedli ne samo slovenske <strong>razprave</strong>, ampak tudi številneKosovelove verze; Philip Burt je kot lektor poskrbel <strong>za</strong> končno podoboprevodov; slovenska prevoda sta delo Vere Troha in Nika Ježa; AlenkaMaček je revijo pripravila <strong>za</strong> tisk; Seta Knop je <strong>razprave</strong> dokumentacijskoopremila. Hvala tudi ustanovam – Znanstvenemu inštitutu Filozofskefakultete, Ministrstvu <strong>za</strong> kulturo in Društvu slovenskih pisateljev –, ki sodenarno omogočile izid dvojezične publikacije, <strong>za</strong> katero upamo, da boKosovelovo poetiko približala tudi neslovenskim bralcem in raziskovalcemnjegovih pesmi.* * *Razprave, objavljene na naslednjih straneh, obravnavajo različne vidikeKosovelove ustvarjalnosti: anali<strong>za</strong>m ver<strong>za</strong>, podobja in avantgardnih pes-
niških parazvrsti sledijo prispevki, ki se ukvarjajo s problemi literarnozgodovinskeumestitve in kanoni<strong>za</strong>cije pesnika, z njegovim odnosom donihilizma ter z bralskimi odzivi; razpravi, ki sta objavljeni na koncu, obravnavataKosovelovo poetiko tako, da jo postavita v kontekst sočasnegaitalijanskega, predvsem tržaškega literarnega dogajanja.Boris . Novak v svoji analizi Kosovelovega ver<strong>za</strong> ugotavlja, da jemladi pesnik, ki je imel prirojen posluh <strong>za</strong> ritem, vendar ni bil spreten verzifikator,krizo ver<strong>za</strong> premagal tako, da je napake spremenil v vrline. DarjaPavlič je proučila podobje v Kosovelovi poeziji in prišla do <strong>za</strong>ključka, daje velik del njegove poezije romantičen, realističen in ekspresionističen,medtem ko je moderno metaforiko uporabljal samo v manjšem delu svojepoezije. Bożena Tokarz se je v svojem prispevku osredotočila na prepoznavneznačilnosti dveh pesniških parazvrsti, konsov in integralov, ki ju jeuvedel Kosovel. Razprava Jane<strong>za</strong> Vrečka raziskuje pesnikovo <strong>za</strong>držanostdo italijanskega futurizma in balkanskega zenitizma, pri čemer ugotavlja,da so njegovi znameniti konsi posebnost in eden od vrhov evropskega literarnegakonstruktivizma. Marko Juvan je v hibridni koprezenci raznorodnihKosovelovih poetik prepoznal pomemben simptom modernizma –modernistično večjezičnost, relativizem, ambivalenco, prezentizem in perspektivizem.Prispevek Marijana Dovića opo<strong>za</strong>rja, da so odločilno vlogopri kanoni<strong>za</strong>ciji Kosovela odigrali drugi akterji v literarnem sistemu, sajproizvajalec ni <strong>za</strong>pustil natančnejših načrtov, kaj storiti z njegovo <strong>za</strong>puščino.Matevž Kos ugotavlja, da Nietzsche ni ključna oseba, ki bi odpiralavrata Kosovelovega pesniškega sveta. Pesnik v nasprotju s filozofom <strong>za</strong>govarjapoudarjeno etično-moralno držo, saj se mora človek vsakič znovaodločati med dobrim in zlim, pravičnim in krivičnim. Alenka Jovanovskise v svojem prispevku ukvarja s komunikativno funkcijo estetskega izkustva,pri čemer raziskuje, na kakšen način je Kosovel usmerjal bralca vdružbeno aktivno vlogo. Prispevek Katie Pizzi se osredotoča na obširenkorpus sočasne tržaške pesniške produkcije in na ta način ponuja oceno oKosovelovem mestu v kontekstu evropske avantgarde. Darja Betocchi naosnovi komparativne analize Kosovelovega opusa ter pesmi in pisem milanskegapesnika Clementeja Rebore (1885–1957) ugotavlja, da o pravemekspresionističnem gibanju pri Italijanih ni mogoče govoriti.Uredniki
KOSOVEL, VELIK PESNIKIN SLAB VERZIFIKATORBoris A. NovakFilozofska fakulteta, LjubljanaKosovelova zgodnja pesniška dela – če v primeru pesnika, ki umre pridvaindvajsetih letih in <strong>za</strong> seboj pusti ogromen opus, sploh lahko uporabimopriljubljeno literarnozgodovinsko frazo »zgodnja dela« – ponujajo sijajenmaterial <strong>za</strong> analizo razpada ve<strong>za</strong>ne besede v prosti verz. Mladi pesnik seje očitno trudil, da bi obrzdal verzifikacijo, vendar mu je uhajala iz rok;obupno si je pri<strong>za</strong>deval, da bi svoj prirojeni posluh <strong>za</strong> pesniški ritem prilagodil(pre)ostrim metričnim omejitvam, vendar njegovi verzi nerodnoštrlijo iz pravil tradicionalne metrike; rimo je očitno še zmeraj doživljal kotnepogrešljivo znamenje pesniškosti pesniškega besedila, vendar so se mule redkokdaj posrečile na umetniško poln in prepričljiv način. V zgodovinislovenske poezije ni bolj drastičnega primera »krize ver<strong>za</strong>«, če naj uporabimoMallarméjevo formulacijo. Kaj naj naredi nadarjen mlad pesnik, če neobvlada materiala svoje umetnosti – pesniškega jezika? Ustvari nov jezik.Kako? Tako da napake spremeni v vrline, da pomanjkljivosti prevede vprednosti, da iz šibkosti skuje novo moč.Če govorimo o napakah, jih je mogoče ugotoviti le na o<strong>za</strong>dju določenegasistema pravil. Še več: napaka kot taka je učinek pravila. Od tod sledizelo preprosto pravilo: če v določenem sistemu naredimo napako, jo najboljučinkovito odpravimo tako, da jo ponovimo. Ponovljena napaka niveč napaka; je že sistem. Na <strong>za</strong>četku svoje pesniške avanture je Kosovelintuitivno sledil prav tej umetniški strategiji: ponoviti napako! Iz formalnenapake narediti umetniško resnico!Začetnik ne najde novih in svežih rim, <strong>za</strong>to nenehno ponavlja iste dvojicerim ali pa <strong>za</strong>drego razreši s ponavljanjem istih besed v funkciji rim, karje postopek, ki ga je tradicionalna poetika močno odsvetovala, češ da gre<strong>za</strong> mehanično ponavljanje. Toda oglejmo si, kako tovrstno ponavljanje vKosovelovi pesmi Vas <strong>za</strong> bori paradoksalno obogati pomen:V oklepu zelenih borovih rokbela, <strong>za</strong>prašena vas,poldremajoča vaskot ptica v varnem gnezdu rok.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka
KOSOVELOVA POETIKASredi dehtečih borov postanem:Ni to objem mojih rok?Velik objem, velik obok<strong>za</strong> takó majhno gručo otrok.Za zidom cerkvenim je pokopannekdo. Na grobu šipek cveté.Iz bele vasi bele poti –in vse te poti v moje srce.Besedi roke in vas pesnik večkrat ponovi v verznih izglasjih, v funkcijirime; ponovljeni besedi tako vstopita v različne semantične kontekste inrazvijeta niz pomenskih odtenkov, ki razširijo vsebinsko polje teh obrabljenihbesed daleč zunaj območja tradicionalnega svetobolja in nanj nave<strong>za</strong>nepoetike. Pozneje bomo natančneje analizirali ta postopek in ugotovili, dagre <strong>za</strong> svojevrstno oživitev trubadurskega principa <strong>za</strong>-ključnih besed.Besedo »bolest« prenesemo le v poeziji Srečka Kosovela, pri kateremkoli drugem pesniku zveni obupno »<strong>za</strong>teženo«. Zato ker je le pri Kosovelutako pomensko bogata, da učinkuje sveže. Pesniški zven je vselej učinekpomena. Spomnimo se uvodne kitice v pesem Slutnja:Polja.Podrtija ob cesti.Tema.Tišina bolesti.Večina zgodnjih Kosovelovih pesniških besedil, ki jih slovenska literarnazgodovina z ne preveč natančno oznako imenuje »impresionističnalirika«, sodi po formalnih razsežnostih v okvir tradicionalne verzifikacije,točneje: v obdobje njenega razkrajanja in <strong>za</strong>tona. Gre <strong>za</strong> ve<strong>za</strong>no besedo,določeno z metričnimi <strong>za</strong>konitostmi silabotonične verzifikacije, ki so pa žezrahljane in kažejo v smer prostega ver<strong>za</strong>.Pesniški jezik v teh pesmih je zelo preprost: verzni ritem je utemeljenna najbolj pogostih in priljubljenih metrih, podedovanih iz dolge tradicije,<strong>za</strong> evfonijo so značilne že neštetokrat slišane in zli<strong>za</strong>ne rime, kompozicijapesmi pa je členjena v najbolj razširjene kitične oblike. Najpogostejše soštirivrstičnice, pri čemer čuti Kosovel posebno afiniteto do pesemske pove<strong>za</strong>vetreh štirivrstičnic, kar je znotraj njegove poezije daleč najbolj frekventnakitična kompozicija.Podrobnejši pregled verznih ritmov v tem segmentu Kosovelove lirikekaže sila raznovrstno podobo: približno enakovredno naravnanost k trohejskimin jambskim metrom ter <strong>za</strong> slovensko pesniško tradicijo nenavadnopogosto rabo trizložnih stopic (daktilov, amfibrahov in celo anapestov, kiso <strong>za</strong>radi maloštevilčnosti slovenskih besed s tem naglasnim profilom vslovenski poeziji zelo redki). Glede na variabilnost verznega ritma znotrajpesmi in celo znotraj ver<strong>za</strong> je tradicionalni pojem metra v Kosovelovemprimeru večinoma neuporaben; bolj primerna je oznaka metrični impulz,ki vsebuje tudi možnost ritmičnih variacij, odstopanj in celo kršenj prvotnemetrične sheme. V mnogih pesmih se meter oz. metrični impulz spremi-
BORIS A. NOVAK: KOSOVEL, VELIK PESNIK IN SLAB VERZIFIKATORnjata iz ver<strong>za</strong> v verz: če ritem opazujemo na ravni posameznega ver<strong>za</strong>, jepravilen, naslednji verz pa nas preseneti, včasih celo šokira z drugačnim, ametrično pravilnim ritmom. Ta Kosovelova pesniška besedila so torej izometričnana ravni posameznega ver<strong>za</strong> in polimetrična na ravni celotnegabesedila. V mnogih pesmih pa se ritem nenehno spreminja, celo znotrajver<strong>za</strong>, <strong>za</strong>to raba metričnih obrazcev pri njihovi analizi kratko malo nimasmisla.Temeljna <strong>za</strong>konitost ve<strong>za</strong>ne besede je podrejanje sintakse zunanjim, metričnimomejitvam. Preprosto povedano: stavek se mora podrediti omejitvam,ki jih narekuje metrična shema (mreža naglasov, število zlogov itd.),zvočni vzorci (rime, asonance, aliteracije itd.). Ko se na prelomu 19. in20. stoletja, po dolgi prevladi ve<strong>za</strong>ne besede, tradicionalna verzifikacija»izpoje« in zbledi v kliše, pesniki <strong>za</strong>čutijo legitimno potrebo po razbijanjukalupov, ki dušijo živ navdih. (Namenoma uporabljam sentimentalno tradicionalnobesedo navdih, inspiracija, ker se v njej etimološko skriva korendih, dihanje, torej ritem pljuč, krvi, srca, telesa.) Resnici na ljubo pa je trebapriznati, da razpad metričnih pravil dejansko povzroči tudi razpad pesniškegajezika. V organizmu ver<strong>za</strong> nastane strukturni vakuum, saj ver<strong>za</strong> neorganizirajo več metrične <strong>za</strong>konitosti in omejitve. Za verz v poeziji, pisaniv ve<strong>za</strong>ni besedi, je značilno, da nenehno opo<strong>za</strong>rja na svojo pesniškost, danenehno vpije oz. poje: »Jaz nisem pro<strong>za</strong>, jaz sem verz!« Signali <strong>za</strong> pesniškostver<strong>za</strong> so (bili) pravilen (metrično organiziran) ritem, »cingljanje« rimv verznih končnicah itd. Kako naj verz dokaže, da je verz, da je vzvišenapoezija in ne zgolj banalna pro<strong>za</strong>, če se odpove svojim najmočnejšim sredstvom?Kri<strong>za</strong> metra torej povzroči potrebo po novem organi<strong>za</strong>cijskem, urejevalnemprincipu, po novem načinu ritmotvornosti. Temeljno ritmotvornovlogo zdaj prev<strong>za</strong>me sintaksa, skladnja. – Kosovelova »impresionistična«lirika zelo natančno kaže ta razvoj. Znotraj zgodovine slovenske poezijenam prav<strong>za</strong>prav ponuja najboljši material <strong>za</strong> opazovanje in razumevanjetektonskega preloma, dramatičnega in daljnosežnega prehoda iz ve<strong>za</strong>nebesede v prosti verz.Izraz prosti verz je nevaren, ker sugerira iluzijo popolne umetniške svobode,ki je v pesniškem jeziku ni in ne more biti. Verz mora vselej temeljitina močnem ritmu, pa naj je ta organiziran metrično ali kako drugače, sicerni verz.Namesto ponavljanja ritmičnih in evfoničnih (zvočnih) vzorcev, značilnega<strong>za</strong> ve<strong>za</strong>no besedo, prosti verz temelji na ponavljanju sintaktičnih enotter besed oz. skupin besed, pogosto v funkciji retoričnih figur anafore (ponavljanjebesed na <strong>za</strong>četkih več verzov ali stavkov) in epifore (isti postopekna koncu več verzov ali stavkov). Ta način ritmične organi<strong>za</strong>cije ver<strong>za</strong> paje v osnovi enak pradavnemu, zgodovinsko prvotnemu principu pesniškegajezika, ki ga poznamo iz egipčanskih delovnih pesmi in čudovitih psalmovSvetega pisma Stare <strong>za</strong>veze in ki ga imenujemo paralelizem členov. Takourejena, retorično organizirana besedila seveda ne potrebujejo dodatnihmetričnih ponavljanj in omejitev. Sonet Želja po smrti je psalmodičen takov vsebinskem kot v formalnem smislu, saj se sedemkrat ponovi anaforaDaj (v uvodnem verzu s formulacijo Daj mi, Bog):
KOSOVELOVA POETIKADaj mi, Bog, da mogel bi umreti,tiho potopiti se v temò,še enkrat kot zvezda <strong>za</strong>žareti,onemeti, pasti v črno dno,kjer nikogar ni in kjer ne svetiniti ena luč in ni težkóčakati poslednjih razodetij,kar od vekomaj je sojeno biló.Daj, da stopim stran izmed ljudi,daj, da stopim in da se ne vrnem,daj mi milost: temò, ki teší,da v bolečini s Tabo se strnem,daj, da odidem od teh ljudi,daj, da odidem in da se ne vrnem.Natančnejša anali<strong>za</strong> te pesmi pokaže, da trohejski metrični impulz trikratpresekajo jambsko intonirani verzi. Tu lahko opazujemo tudi postopek,ki je pri Kosovelu zelo pogost: da metrično shemo, ki jo vzpostavi inspoštuje na <strong>za</strong>četku pesmi, pozneje zrahlja in celo krši. Živi ritem, temelječna nav-dihu, pač pelje pesnika stran od metričnih <strong>za</strong>povedi in prepovedi.Še posebej je <strong>za</strong>nimiva Kosovelova raba rime: njegov slovar rim je – čenaj bomo povsem iskreni – izjemno reven, s prevlado tako imenovanihglagolskih rim. (Med vsemi besednimi družinami je <strong>za</strong>radi sovpadanjakončnic glagole v slovenščini najlaže rimati, rime, ki so prelahke, pa so pomensko– in torej tudi zvočno – revne.) Kot da Kosovel nenehno ponavljarime, ki se jih je na pamet naučil iz pesniškega kanona slovenske poezije19. stoletja. Pri vsakem drugem, manj nadarjenem sočasnem pesniku bi <strong>za</strong>tekanjek tako znanim in domačim verznim končnicam pomenilo znamenjeobupno sentimentalne, <strong>za</strong>starele in konzervativne poetike. Pri Kosovelu pate neštetokrat uporabljene in zlorabljene rime nenadoma <strong>za</strong>zvenijo drugače,sveže, umetniško pristno. Znotraj okvirov tradicionalne verzifikacije sezgodi tih, a globok in daljnosežen prelom: drugačna raba jezika tudi tempodedovanim ritmom in rimam podeli nov zven in pomen (kajti v poezijije zven vselej tesno pove<strong>za</strong>n s pomenom).Ena izmed strategij, s katerimi Kosovel preseže semantično in evfoničnorevščino svojih rim je – paradoksalno – prav postopek ponavljanja, okaterem smo govorili zgoraj. Ponovljena napaka ni več napaka. Pomenskoin zvočno šibka rimana beseda, ki se ponovi, ni več šibka, saj spremenjenisemantični kontekst podeli tej besedi nov in drugačen, močan pomen.Ponavljanje rimanih besed, ki je bilo morda na <strong>za</strong>četku izraz <strong>za</strong>drege innerodnosti, nezmožnosti najti novo besedo na isto rimo, se spremeni v <strong>za</strong>vestenin ploden postopek. Kosovelova raba tega postopka je tako intenzivna,da ne gre več <strong>za</strong> rimo v tradicionalnem smislu (spomnimo se: definicijarime je, da gre <strong>za</strong> ponavljanje vseh glasov od <strong>za</strong>dnjega naglašenegavokala naprej), temveč <strong>za</strong> postopek, ki ga italijanska literarna veda imenujeparole rime, kjer se torej rimajo cele besede, kjer ponavljanje besed nadomeščarime. Sam imenujem ta postopek <strong>za</strong>-ključne besede: <strong>za</strong>ključnebesede v verzu so ritmično, zvočno in pomensko ključne. Ta postopek so10
adi uporabljali provansalski trubadurji 12. in 13. stoletja, in sicer na silarazlične načine: <strong>za</strong>-ključne besede so se bodisi ponavljale v vsaki kiticina istem mestu (na koncu prvega, drugega, tretjega itd. ver<strong>za</strong>) ali pa so po<strong>za</strong>pletenem ključu spreminjale svoj položaj, kar najbolj prihaja do izra<strong>za</strong> vsekstini, pesemski obliki, ki jo je izumil Arnautz Daniel in kjer se <strong>za</strong>-ključnebesede ponavljajo po vzorcu 6 – 1 – 5 – 2 – 4 – 3. Po šestih sekstinah,šestvrstičnicah, se v sklepni trivrstični tornadi oglasi prvotno <strong>za</strong>poredje <strong>za</strong>ključnihbesed, po dve v vsakem verzu. Z izjemo sekstine, ki <strong>za</strong>hvaljujočDanteju in Petrarci preživi, ta jezikovni postopek trubadurske umetnostižal izgine iz repertoarja evropske poezije; kako nenavadno in lepo je, da tapostopek ponovno oživi nerodni mladi pesnik s slovenskega Krasa! Naj kotprimer rabe <strong>za</strong>-ključnih besed navedemo pesem Ne, jaz nočem še umreti:Ne, jaz nočem še umreti,saj imam očeta, mater,saj imam še brate, sestre,ljubico, prijatelje;ne, jaz nočem še umreti.Ne, jaz nočem še umreti,saj še sije zlato sonce,saj mladost me drzna spremlja,saj so cilji še pred mano;ne, jaz nočem še umreti.Kadar pa ne bo nikogar,staršev ne, ne bratov, sester,ljubice, prijateljev –in jesensko tiho soncebo čez Kras, čez Kras sijalo,kot bi <strong>za</strong> mano žalovalo –res, ne bom se bal umreti,kaj mi samemu živeti?BORIS A. NOVAK: KOSOVEL, VELIK PESNIK IN SLAB VERZIFIKATORZa-ključne besede v tej pesmi so umreti, sestre, prijatelji in sonce, ponavljajopa se tudi druge besede znotraj verzov ter celo prvi in <strong>za</strong>dnji verz prvihdveh kitic, kar učinkuje kot refren. Kitična členitev je nenavadna: dvemapetvrstičnicama sledi daljša, osemvrstična kitica, kot da je pesnik <strong>za</strong>čel pisatipesem z načrtom, da bi jo zgradil iz simetričnih petvrstičnih kitic, nakar muje nav-dih podaljšal tretjo, sklepno kitico. Z izjemo <strong>za</strong>dnjih štirih verzov, kiso <strong>za</strong>poredno in glagolsko rimani (sicer lahka in bombastična postopka, ki patu dobro učinkujeta), je besedilo nerimano; odsotnost rim Kosovel kompenziras trdnim, metrično organiziranim verzom (trohejski osmerci, z izjemodveh sedmercev, ki imata enak, trohejski meter). Če seriji nerimanih verzovsledi rima, zveni ta zvočni stik toliko močneje, ker ga ne pričakujemo; enakoučinkuje odsotnost rime po seriji rimanih verzov; Kosovel je očitno intuitivnočutil pesniško in čustveno moč tovrstnih sprememb postopkov.Rima seveda ni le evfonični, temveč tudi ritmični in semantični fenomen.Sovisnost ritma in rime (ne po<strong>za</strong>bimo: ti dve besedi sta tudi etimološkopove<strong>za</strong>ni!) se dobro kaže v mnogih Kosovelovih besedilih, ki se odmikajood tradicionalne verzifikacije: tam, kjer je pesniški ritem metrično11
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAneoporečen, si Kosovel dovoli opustitev rime, z močnejšo rabo rime pakompenzira labilnost ritma v besedilih, kjer se odpove metrični pravilnosti.Še ena potrditev <strong>za</strong>konitosti, ki smo jo zgoraj orisali, da je strukturnivakuum ob razpadu ve<strong>za</strong>ne besede treba nadomestiti z drugimi sredstvi:če umolkne rima, spregovori ritem; če ritem drsi, daje verzu oporo rima.Iz številnih primerov, ki nam jih ponuja Kosovelova poezija, lahko izluščimotudi splošnejšo <strong>za</strong>konitost, da v obdobju razpada ve<strong>za</strong>ne besede veljaobratno sorazmerje med metrom in rimo. Pesem Spomnim se je tipičen primer,ko okrepljeni metrično organizirani ritem (trohejski osmerec) <strong>za</strong>polnistrukturni vakuum, ki je nastal <strong>za</strong>radi opustitve rime in simetrične členitvekitic, k večji organiziranosti pesniškega besedila pa prispevajo tudi anafore(in; tiho, da ni) ter sintaktični paralelizmi:Spomnim se, ko sem se vrnilin molčal sem kakor cesta,ki vse vidi, a ne sodi.Tam pod tistim temnim zidomsem poslavljal se od tebein sem te težkó poljubljalna oči otožnovdanein na tvoje temne lasein tajil besede rahle,da bi Krasu bil podoben.In ko sem domov se vračal,sem na cesti se razjokal,tiho, da ni čulo polje,tiho, da ni čula gmajna,da drevo ni <strong>za</strong>ihtelosredi gmajne, tiho, samo.Naj kot primer nasprotnega postopka, ko rime kompenzirajo odsotnostmetra, citiramo pesem Mati čaka:Tujec, vidiš to luč, ki v oknu gori?Moja mati me čaka in mene ni,vse je tiho v noči, polje temnó,zdaj bi stopil tja, pokleknil pred njo.Mati, poglej: nič nočem več od sveta,reci besedo, besedo, besedo od srca,da bo v njej mirna luč in topel svit<strong>za</strong>me, ki tavam okrog ubit, ubit.Joj! Ugasnila je luč. Zakaj, ne vem.Šel bi pogledat, tujec, a zdaj ne smem.Daj mi, da morem umreti tukaj, sedaj,glej, meni je ugasnil edini, poslednji sijaj.Metrični impulz te pesmi je trohejski, ki pa doživi številne variacije,ritem se spreminja, enako kakor število zlogov, ki niha od 10 do 15. Da bipresegel labilnost tovrstnega verznega ritma, Kosovel poleg <strong>za</strong>porednega12
načina rimanja, ki je najbolj preprost in »glasen«, tu poseže tudi po simetričnem,pravilnem kitičnem členjenju. K pravilu o obratnem sorazmerjumed metrom in rimo v času razpadanja ve<strong>za</strong>ne besede v prosti verz lahkotorej pritegnemo tudi kitično členjenje. Pri metrično razpuščenih pesmihKosovel in drugi pesniki tega prehodnega obdobja vztrajajo pri simetričnih,pravilnih kiticah, medtem ko metrična strogost omogoča razpustitevsimetričnega kitičnega členjenja v različno dolge kitice, ki jih organizirapredvsem »vsebinski«, se pravi sintaktično-semantični vidik.Mnoge Kosovelove zgodnje pesmi so v zvrstnem in formalnem smislumodernizirane balade. Zanimivo je, da z oznako Balada Kosovel naslovidrobno in preprosto pesem, ki je ena izmed njegovih najbolj priljubljenih:V jesenski tihi časprileti brinjevkana Kras.Na poljuže nikogar več ni,le onapreko gmajneleti.In samo lovecji sledi…Strel v tišino;droben curek krvi;brinjevkaobleži, obleži.V tej pesmi Kosovel kombinira pripovedne in lirske prvine. Ta zvrstnividik in tragični konec sta najbrž razloga, <strong>za</strong>kaj je pesnik naslovil to besedilokot Balado. Po drugi strani najdemo pri Kosovelu mnoge pesmi, kjer – <strong>za</strong>vestnoali pod<strong>za</strong>vestno – poleg zvrstnih in sporočilnih razsežnosti upoštevatudi formalne značilnosti balade, kakor jo poznamo iz slovenskega ljudskegaslovstva. Najboljši primer tovrstne »prave« balade je znamenita pesem Bori,ki je zgrajena na verznem ritmu trohejskega osmerca, enem izmed najpogostejšihritmov baladnega pesništva ne le pri nas, temveč tudi pri drugihnarodih. Naj med tipično baladnimi elementi omenimo tudi rabo dialoga v tejpesmi. Namesto rim tu ponovno srečamo princip <strong>za</strong>-ključnih besed (gro<strong>za</strong>,bori, gora, bratje, mati, oče), k trdni organi<strong>za</strong>ciji tega besedila pa bistvenoprispevata tudi retorični figuri geminacije, se pravi ponavljanja besed (predvsembesede bori), in anafore (bori, ali, ko da).Bori, bori v tihi grozi,bori, bori v nemi grozi,bori, bori, bori, bori!Bori, bori, temni borikakor stražniki pod goropreko kamenite gmajnetežko, trudno šepetajo.BORIS A. NOVAK: KOSOVEL, VELIK PESNIK IN SLAB VERZIFIKATOR13
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAKadar bolna duša skloniv jasni noči se čez gore,čujem pritajene zvokein ne morem več <strong>za</strong>spati.»Trudno sanjajoči bori,ali umirajo mi bratje,ali umira moja mati,ali kliče me moj oče?«Brez odgovora vršijokakor v ubitih, trudnih sanjah,ko da umira moja mati,ko da kliče me moj oče,ko da so mi bolni bratje.Bori so ena izmed najboljših Kosovelovih pesmi in zgovoren dokaz, daje mladi pesnik prvotno verzifikacijsko nerodnost s pomočjo principa ponavljanjpresegel v smer globoko osebnega pesniškega izra<strong>za</strong>, kjer je zelozgodaj dosegel nenavadno umetniško zrelost.Vrhunec Kosovelovega truda, da bi obvladal tradicionalno verzifikacijo,so nedvomno soneti. Gre predvsem <strong>za</strong> petdeset pesmi, uvrščenih v II. razdelekPesmi, prve knjige Zbranega dela Srečka Kosovela, ki jo je uredilAnton Ocvirk (DZS, 1946). Manj poučeni bralci teh besedil najbrž nitine prepoznajo kot sonete, saj dvema kvartinama sledi tretja, šestvrstičnakitica (tercini sta torej združeni v sekstino). A tudi ta kitična kompozicijaje znotraj bogate <strong>za</strong>kladnice podzvrsti sonetne oblike možna in po kitičnisestavi regularna. Tu si Kosovel pogosto pri<strong>za</strong>deva doseči zgodovinskoprvotni ritem jambskega enajsterca, posreči se mu celo t. i. simplex, kakorje Antonio da Tempo v 14. stoletju poimenoval <strong>za</strong>htevno razporeditev rimABBA ABBA CDC DCD (oklepajoče rime v kvartinah, v tercinah pa verižne– rime incatenate), kar je najpogostejša oblika Prešernove recepcijesoneta in torej temeljni model rimanja v zgodovini slovenskega soneta.Primer tovrstnega rimanja je sonet Truden, ubit:Truden, ubit grem iz dneva v večer,na mojih ustnih ni več molitve,v moji duši prekrute žalitvein brez miru sem, miru ni nikjer.Kakor da sem že izgrešil smer,v dalji ne vidim več odrešitve,ah, v moji duši ni več molitvein miru več ne najdem nikjer.Dvigni se, duša pobita, steptana,dvigni, <strong>za</strong>gori, <strong>za</strong>poj do Boga,da boš kot harfa prijetno ubranakot med večernim žarenjem srca,da spet bom <strong>za</strong>slutil kraljestva neznanatam preko morij, tam onkraj sveta!14
Obenem velja poudariti, da te rigorozne razporeditve rim Kosovel nekombinira z verznim ritmom jambskega enajsterca, zgodovinsko prvotnegain tudi pozneje najbolj pogostega sonetnega ritma. Metrični impulz tegasoneta sloni na daktilih, <strong>za</strong>sledimo pa tudi odstopanja od tega metra in nihanještevila zlogov.Poleg te variante rad uporablja v kvartinskem delu tudi prestopne rime(ABAB), v tercinskem pa ponovljene rime (rime replicate: CDE CDE) aliobrnjene rime – rime invertite: CDE EDC). Zanimivo pa je, da Kosovelposeže tudi po razporeditvah rim, značilnih <strong>za</strong> francoski in angleški sonet,kar je v slovenski poeziji sila nenavadno. Kot primer francoske razporeditverim (ABBA ABBA – ali ABAB ABAB – CCD EED) naj navedemosonet Iz cikla: Peto nadstropje.V petem nadstropju so dobri ljudje,v petem nadstropju in v vlažnih kleteh,tam se nikoli ne utrne smeh,oči tiho, mrliško brne.In otroci, ki se rode,kot da imajo žveplo v očeh,brezglasno leže, zvijajoč se po tleh,v cunje gnijoče ihte, ihte…Toda peto nadstropje in kletkadar pregnije, se zruši svetin stisne smeh veselih ljudi.Tropa vojakov s puškami gre,a še ti se nad mrliči zgroze –kako da bi mogli streljati?Med Kosovelimi soneti srečamo kar petkrat razporeditev rim, značilno<strong>za</strong> t. i. angleški sonet (ABAB CDCD EFEF GG). Kot primer prisluhnimojedki pesmi Gospodom pesnikom:Kot v peklu <strong>za</strong>kajeni vinski kletiod jutra zbrani pa do polnočipisatelji, slikarji in poetidušijo svežost rože in moči.Obrazi njih mrtvaški so in bledi,njih srca jih peko kot ogenj vic,popivajo ob bedi in besediin javkanje, to njihov je poklic.BORIS A. NOVAK: KOSOVEL, VELIK PESNIK IN SLAB VERZIFIKATORGostilna je njihova <strong>za</strong>vetníca.Pa naj velja še, kar je že nekdaj?Jaz pojdem tja, kjer beda in krivicatemnita zlati kraljevski sijaj,ponižanje, trpljenje, glad in beda,tam naj spoznanja željni duh spregleda.Na prvi pogled se sicer zdi, da Kosovelovi soneti po kitični sestavi (4– 4 – 6) ne ustre<strong>za</strong>jo strukturi angleškega soneta (4 – 4 – 4 – 2), vendar15
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAje pri vprašanjih pesniških oblik zvočna narava (tu razporeditev rim) boljbistvena kakor grafična členitev oz. vizualna podoba pesmi.V nasprotju s Prešernovo izključno rabo ženskih izglasij in rim v sonetihin vseh pesmih, zgrajenih na verznem ritmu jambskega enajsterca, Kosovelpogosto posega po moških izglasjih in rimah (ali po t. i. razširjeni moškirimi, kjer daktilska končnica in rima nadomeščata moško), kar je tudi nasplohtendenca slovenske sonetistike po Prešernu. Raba moških rim je enaizmed razsežnosti, kjer Kosovel in drugi pesniki odstopajo od Prešernovegamodela soneta, ki sicer nenehno lebdi nad slovenskimi sonetisti, celo takrat,kadar se od njega oddaljujejo. Pomenljivo je, da Kosovel v pesmihs kritično in politično tendenco (npr. pri sonetih Revolucija, Predkosilnisonet pa tudi pri zgoraj citiranem sonetu Iz cikla: Peto nadstropje) skorajizključno uporablja moška izglasja in rime.Sonetistika predstavlja vrhunec Kosovelovega formalnega napora; mednjegovimi soneti je tudi nekaj močnih pesmi, ki sodijo v antologijo slovenskegasoneta. To gotovo velja <strong>za</strong> Sonet smrti:In vse je nič. Te žametne očiso kakor žalost, ki strmi v sivino,njih temni sloj prodira med tišinokot zvok, ki se v šumenju izgubi.Te tihe, črne, žametne očimi s svojim temnim bleskom in milinopoljubljajo to sivo bolečino,ki mojo dušo vsak dan bolj duši.Te tihe, črne, žametne očiso kakor črno, žametno nebo,nad ostro rano Krasa razprostrto,so kakor luč, ki dušo pomiri;ko ugasne nad pokrajino razdrto,se v mehko temo duša potopi.Ena izmed najbolj pretresljivih Kosovelovih pesmi je gotovo sonet Enaje gro<strong>za</strong>:Ena je gro<strong>za</strong>, ta gro<strong>za</strong> je: biti –sredi kaosa, sredi noči,iskati izhoda in slutiti,da rešitve ni in ni.Včasih se med ranjene skaletiho razlije zlati svitjutranje <strong>za</strong>rje – šel bi dalje,pa že čutiš, da si ubit.Kakor da se <strong>za</strong>rja rani,kadar razgrne svoj pajčolan,kadar razlije goreče slapovjein ti <strong>za</strong>kliče pod goro: Vstani,glej, že gori razbito gorovje! –Ti čutiš ga in ne veruješ vanj. –16
BORIS A. NOVAK: KOSOVEL, VELIK PESNIK IN SLAB VERZIFIKATORKot vemo, pa je pesniška avantura peljala Srečka Kosovela drugam, vavantgardistične jezikovne eksperimente. Ritmotvorna vloga sintakse terprincip ponavljanj besed, ki sta značilna <strong>za</strong> njegov izstop iz območja ve<strong>za</strong>nebesede v prosti verz, sta osnovi njegovega nadaljnjega iskanja in raziskovanja.Skratka: korpus Kosovelovih pesmi, napisanih v ve<strong>za</strong>ni besedi, nam ponujaobilo šolskih primerov, da umetniško močna poezija ni vselej zgrajenana enako spretni verzifikaciji. Srečko Kosovel je slab verzifikator in velikpesnik. K sreči verzifikacija v poeziji ni vse. Verzifikacija se s časom tudispreminja. Napake znotraj starega estetskega sistema rade postanejo kvalitetev naslednjerm obdobju.• POVZETEKUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / verzifikacija / metrika /rimaVečina zgodnjih Kosovelovih pesniških besedil, ki jih slovenska literarna zgodovinaz ne preveč natančno oznako imenuje »impresionistična lirika«, sodi poformalnih razsežnostih v okvir tradicionalne verzifikacije, točneje: v obdobjenjenega razkrajanja in <strong>za</strong>tona. Gre <strong>za</strong> ve<strong>za</strong>no besedo, določeno z metričnimi<strong>za</strong>konitostmi silabotonične verzifikacije, ki so pa že zrahljane in kažejo v smerprostega ver<strong>za</strong>.Pesniški jezik v teh pesmih je zelo preprost: verzni ritem je utemeljen nanajbolj pogostih in priljubljenih metrih, podedovanih iz dolge tradicije, <strong>za</strong> evfonijoso značilne že neštetokrat slišane in zli<strong>za</strong>ne rime, kompozicija pesmi paje členjena v najbolj razširjene kitične oblike (najpogosteje štirivrstičnice).Še posebej je <strong>za</strong>nimiva Kosovelova raba rime: njegov slovar rim je – če najbomo povsem iskreni – izjemno reven, s prevlado tako imenovanih glagolskihrim. (Med vsemi besednimi družinami je <strong>za</strong>radi sovpadanja končnic glagole vslovenščini najlaže rimati, rime, ki so prelahke, pa so pomensko – in torej tudizvočno – revne.) Kot da Kosovel nenehno ponavlja rime, ki se jih je na pametnaučil iz pesniškega kanona slovenske poezije 19. stoletja. Pri vsakem drugem,manj nadarjenem sočasnem pesniku bi <strong>za</strong>tekanje k tako znanim in domačimverznim končnicam pomenilo znamenje obupno sentimentalne, <strong>za</strong>starele inkonzervativne poetike. Pri Kosovelu pa te neštetokrat uporabljene in zlorabljenerime nenadoma <strong>za</strong>zvenijo drugače, sveže, umetniško pristno. Znotraj okvirovtradicionalne verzifikacije se zgodi tih, a globok in daljnosežen prelom:drugačna raba jezika tudi tem podedovanim ritmom in rimam podeli nov zvenin pomen (kajti v poeziji je zven vselej tesno pove<strong>za</strong>n s pomenom).Skratka: korpus Kosovelovih pesmi, napisanih v ve<strong>za</strong>ni besedi, nam ponujaobilo šolskih primerov, da umetniško močna poezija ni vselej zgrajena naenako spretni verzifikaciji. Srečko Kosovel je slab verzifikator in velik pesnik.K sreči verzifikacija v poeziji ni vse. Verzifikacija se s časom tudi spreminja.Napake znotraj starega estetskega sistema rade postanejo kvalitete v naslednjemobdobju.17
KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA:ANALIZA PODOBJADarja PavličPedagoška fakulteta, MariborRožePodobe rož ne sodijo med najpogostejše in najpomembnejše v Kosovelovipoeziji. Ker je pesnik svoje občutke rad projiciral v naravo, so rože kar nekajkratmetafore <strong>za</strong> občutke in razpoloženja. Podoba »jesenska roža je <strong>za</strong>prlačašo / in tiha se nagnila v siva tla« (I 42) 1 je npr. metafora <strong>za</strong> melanholijolirskega subjekta in ne le opis jesenskega umiranja narave. Pogosta metafora,ki človekove bolečine pripisuje cvetju, je »krvavenje« (131, 132, 151).Kosovel je redko uporabljal posebna imena <strong>za</strong> cvetje, to je ponavadistoril takrat, kadar je hotel poudariti njihov posebni vonj. Lastnosti, <strong>za</strong>radikaterih je Kosovel pisal o rožah, so največkrat njihova lepota, omamenvonj, minljivost ipd. Manj običajna je metafora: »Moje besede so ostrerože« (I 313). Rožam je pripisana ostrina, vendar to ni tako nenavadno, čeupoštevamo, da gre <strong>za</strong> rože, ki so zrasle sredi kraškega kamenja: ostrina kamenjaje (metonimično) pripisana rožam. Kosovel je podobe rož uporabljaltudi <strong>za</strong>radi njihovih zdravilnih lastnosti (45, 404).Podobe cvetja najdemo tudi v Kosovelovih Integralih; to zbirko literarnizgodovinarji opisujejo kot sinkretični spoj različnih literanih gibanj in tokov:omenjajo ekpresionizem, konstruktivizem, dadaizem, nadrealizem in futurizem.Sprememba, ki jo v Kosovelovi poeziji pomenijo Integrali, je najboljočitna na kompozicijskem nivoju: podobe so postale fragmentarne, tematskoniso trdno pove<strong>za</strong>ne, lirski subjekt se pogosto umakne v o<strong>za</strong>dje in beleži vtisena način filmske kamere. Pobudo <strong>za</strong> tak način pisanja je Kosovel lahko dobiliz nemškega ekspresionizma ali od kod drugod. Pesem »Cvetje na oknu« jeznačilen primer približevanja modernističnemu načinu ni<strong>za</strong>nja podob, vendarso same podobe še čisto tradicionalne. To nam pokaže tudi primerjavaz Župančičevo pesmijo »Prva pomlad«, v kateri beremo: »Pa kdaj si, glog,si cvetja nabral? / Kot iz snežink posneto / je v bele čipke speto« (II 10).Kosovel je enako predstavo upesnil drugače: »Okna odprta, veter / diha od1V bibliografskih navedbah rimska števila označujejo zvezke Zbranih del, arabskaštevila pa strani. Kadar je v istem odstavku <strong>za</strong>poredoma citiranih več podob izistega zvezka, je številka slednjega izpuščena.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka19
KOSOVELOVA POETIKApolj. Na oknu / je glogova vejica. / Kakor da nanjo nežno / <strong>za</strong>pal je sneg. /Sonce na oknu. / Okno je belo. / Čipke na glogu kot sneg« (II 100).Kosovel rožam praviloma ni pripisoval simbolnega pomena. Presenetljivoje, da je izjem največ v Integralih. Rože v »Kons: XY« lahko simbolizirajoljubezen, ki se mora potajiti <strong>za</strong>radi zunanjega, političnega angažmaja. Tudiv pesmi »Kons: mas« je roža simbol ljubezni. Celo tulipanom iz vprašanja»Ali še cveto tulipani?« (II 114) lahko pripišemo simbolni pomen ljubezenskegaupanja, ki pa ga izniči ugotovitev: »Ah, na grobovih kri<strong>za</strong>nteme«(prav tam). V isti pesmi je Kosovel uporabil še en tradicionalni simbol:obraz dekleta je lilijsko bel. Bele vrtnice (178) simbolizirajo izgubljenonedolžnost človeka, ki je postal suženj mehanike. Asociativno logiko ni<strong>za</strong>njapodob, ki so same po sebi deskriptivne, lahko opazujemo v pesmi»Sferično zrcalo«: rdeča kri<strong>za</strong>ntema kot roža grobov se pojavi <strong>za</strong>radi ver<strong>za</strong>»obesi se na klin«, asociacija, ki jo vzbudi, pa je Ivan Cankar.DrevesaDrevesa spadajo med najpogostejše in najpomembnejše podobe vKosovelovi poeziji. Pesnik je v več kot tridesetih primerih uporabil rodovnopoimenovanje drevo, o borih pa govori v vsaj dvajsetih pesmih. Zlastnimi imeni omenja še naslednja drevesa: topole (osemkrat), kostanje(šestkrat), brest (trikrat), lipe (dvakrat), cipreso (dvakrat), jagned (dvakrat),oreh (enkrat), hrast (enkrat), akacije (enkrat), trepetliko (enkrat). Brinje, kije sicer grm, ne spada med pogostejše podobe. Z njim je Kosovel opisovalkraško pokrajino, ni pa mu pripisoval drugih funkcij.Anton Ocvirk je kot urednik Kosovelovega Zbranega dela njegovo poezijorazdelil po motivih in oblikah. V prvo skupino pesmi je uvrstil »impresionističnein čustvene tvorbe« (I 428). V tej skupini so svoje mesto našlepraktično vse Kosovelove pesmi, ki govorijo o borih. Ocvirk je ob pesmi»Bori« <strong>za</strong>pisal, da so se Kosovelu »kakor brinovke tudi bori <strong>za</strong> časa Italijerazrasli v simbol domače zemlje« (441). Seveda bi bilo napačno trditi, daso bori prav v vsaki Kosovelovi pesmi simbol domače zemlje. Podoba:»Borovo morje šumi temno« (I 16), sestavljena je iz metafore (borovo morje)in sinestezije (šumi temno), podaja pesnikov vtis, je samo impresija. Vkomparaciji: »Vse te besede bi morale biti / dehteče kot borovo morje« (64),je pesnik uporabil isto metaforo – tokrat <strong>za</strong>radi močnega, prijetnega vonjaborovcev. V »Pesmi s Krasa« je o njihovem vonju <strong>za</strong>pisal, da je zdrav inmočan. V tej pesmi so bori personificirani, pesnik jih imenuje »tihi drugovikraške samote« (60). Bori niso samo prijatelji, ampak tudi stražarji (26, 61),skupaj s pesnikom ščitijo ter ljubkujejo vas (136), pesnik jim pripisuje svojeobčutke: »Bori, bori v tihi grozi […], vršijo […] ko da umira moja mati, / koda kliče me moj oče, / ko da so mi bolni bratje« (61). Možna je seveda tudisimbolna interpretacija teh verzov: »bore« lahko razumemo kot simbol <strong>za</strong>ljudi s Krasa, ki doživljajo grozo potujčevanja. Simbol <strong>za</strong> Kraševce v časuitalijanske okupacije so lahko tudi temni bori (63) in bori – stoiki mirni (67).Gre <strong>za</strong> klasični simbol v smislu Goethejeve definicije, torej <strong>za</strong> spoj sinekdo-20
DARJA PAVLIČ: KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA: ANALIZA PODOBJAhe in analogije: usoda borov je del usode Krasa, hkrati pa obstaja podobnostmed njihovo usodo in usodo Krasa oz. primorskih Slovencev sploh.Kosovel je rad uporabljal podobe, v katerih drevesa vršijo (I 19, 50,59, 62), šumijo (40, 41, 146), se mehko zibljejo (49). Gre <strong>za</strong> deskriptivnepodobe ali impresije, ki posredno govorijo o vetru oz. burji. Zanimiva jenaslednja personifikacija: »Topol, jagned in trepetlika / tiho šepečejo prekopolja / z nekom od onkraj sveta« (59). Drevesa se v tej podobi pogovarjajos transcendenco, ki pa je oddaljena, odsotna. Kosovel v naravi ni odkrivalkorespondenc z višjimi sferami, pač pa je v naravo rad projiciral svoje občutkein se identificiral z njo. Podobe dreves je uporabljal <strong>za</strong>radi različnihpodobnosti, ki jih je odkrival med seboj in drevesi, pa tudi <strong>za</strong>to, ker jena drevesa projiciral svoje občutke, predvsem žalost. Primerov eksplicitnekomparacije ali metafore, pa tudi prikrite komparacije z drevesom, je vKosovelovi poeziji zelo veliko.Pesmi oz. podobe, ki govorijo o hrepenenju po neznani, daljni skrivnosti,morda niso najbolj značilne <strong>za</strong> Kosovela. Toda njihovo skupno številoni tako majhno, da bi jih lahko odmislili. V komparaciji: »Ko da daljinamprisluškuje / in jim proži roko, / v snegu, v zlatu samuje / tiho, črno drevo«(I 58), so drevesu pripisane simbolne lastnosti hrepenenja po transcendenci.Podobna je komparacija: »Ko da nad [dnom] prisluškuje / ob ribnikučrno drevo« (56). Črno drevo je v obeh primerih metafora <strong>za</strong> lirski subjekt.V Integralih najdemo podobo belega drevesa (II 122) – nosilec simbolnegapomena je v tem primeru predvsem barvna oznaka. Skrivnostni mrtvi človek,ki je bil spočet ob belem drevesu, je verjetno Kristus. V naslednjemprimeru se lirski subjekt izrecno primerja z drevesom: »Kakor drevo izblestečega mo<strong>za</strong>ika / rastem tja v nevidno drevo, v Sredino sveta« (I 324).V tej podobi je simbol drevesa, ki se vzpenja proti transcendenci, združens simbolom središča, ki predstavlja sámo transcendenco.V Integralih so deskriptivne podobe dreves nekajkrat vključene v asociacijskenize po načelu nasprotja (II 25, 32), najbolj očiten primer je pesem»V žalostni krčmi«. Podoba: »Tam zunaj / topoli in sonce in lipe / bleščijo,šumijo« (63), je antite<strong>za</strong> dogajanju v krčmi oz. v ljudeh. Podoba golega, črnegadrevja (91), s katerega odpada listje, je metafora <strong>za</strong> umiranje Evrope.Komparacije v Integralih sicer niso zelo pogoste – to lahko razumemo kotznak modernosti – v motivnem območju dreves pa je tehnično <strong>za</strong>nimivakomparacija, ki preobrne prvotno razmerje med komparatom in komparandom:»Črni topoli ob cestah / so kakor vdove, v črno <strong>za</strong>vite – / njihovekoščene roke, / rumene, / so kot <strong>za</strong>puščene veje« (135).ŽivaliV Kosovelovi poeziji pred Integrali so pogoste podobe ptic, medtem koostalih živali pesnik skoraj ne omenja. Kapitana iz »Tragedije na oceanu«imenuje zver (I 407), zobovje koles primerja z zobovjem zveri (397), pohlepensvet, ki voha denar, pa s psom (168). Nekajkrat je uporabil podobometuljev, po enkrat pa kačjega pastirja in panterja. Kosovel je podobno kot21
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAŽupančič številnim stvarem ali pojavom pripisoval krila in jih tako implicitnoidentificiral s pticami (21, 141, 199, 383).Pove<strong>za</strong>va duša – ptica se pri Kosovelu pojavi trikrat (I 35, 383, 384),prav tolikokrat pa tudi pove<strong>za</strong>va misel – ptica (9, 43, 199). Pogoste sokomparacije in metafore, v katerih se s pticami neposredno primerja aliidentificira lirski subjekt. Kosovel je v nekaterih podobah razvijal tudi simbolnelastnosti ptic kot tradicionalnih posrednic med človekom in absolutom(362, 383). Kot čisti simbol lahko interpretiramo »ptico, ki v svetlisinjini / se ziblje in plava / in mimo gre v lastni mirni tišini / brez pozdrava«(244). Za ptico v sinjini, ki je notranje mirna in samo<strong>za</strong>dostna, strmi socialnodepriviligirana množica ljudi. Ptica jim pomeni (nedosegljivi) ideal.V kontekstu Kosovelovih pesmi s socialno tematiko je ptica, ki leti mimobrez pozdrava, simbol brezbrižne transcendence, ki ne reagira na stiskoljudi. Ko Kosovel opisuje svoje vznesene občutke ob odločitvi, da se boboril »<strong>za</strong> človeka, človeštvo, ljudi«, uporabi komparacijo: »Ko da so tihe,bele peroti / se razprostrle preko sveta« (252). Peroti so v tej komparacijisinekdoha <strong>za</strong> ptico, morda celo <strong>za</strong> angela, <strong>za</strong>to jih lahko interpretiramo tudikot simbol absoluta. O prihodnosti novega človeka se je Kosovel večkratizražal s pomočjo religioznih podob, opisuje jo npr. kot bodoči raj na zemlji.Podobo ptice v sinjini je uporabil tudi v pesmi »Padati« (397), v katerigovori o svoji želji, da bi umrl.Med pticami, ki jih Kosovel imenuje z lastnim imenom, so: labodi (štirikrat),golobi (trikrat), brinjevka (trikrat), vrani (trikrat), pelikan (enkrat),orel (enkrat). Labode je uporabljal kot komparand ali vehikel <strong>za</strong>radi njihovebeline: podobni so jim oblaki (I 37) in pianistove roke (321). Zanimivaje podoba, v kateri so labodi hkrati komparand in tenor: »Bel plašč, ki sesvetlo blešči / kakor labodi – pomladni oblaki« (346). Labodi so bili enanajpogostejših podob v poeziji simbolizma, pove<strong>za</strong>va labod – pesnik pa jezelo stara, labod je npr. v elevzinskih misterijih simboliziral »moč pesnikain poezije«, drugod je bil »emblem navdahnjenega pesnika, svetega duhovna,belo oblečenega druida, nordijskega barda itd.« (Chevalier, 301). Labodv Kosovelovi »Labodji pesmi« (137) je simbol pesnikove nemoči, le da tani pove<strong>za</strong>na z ustvarjanjem kot v znameniti Mallarméjevi pesmi, ampakje čisto eksistencialna: labod oz. pesnik mora ubogati »strašen ukaz […],vase strmeti, živeti proti svoji volji« (137). Kosovelovo samorazumevanje,njegov odnos do lastne eksistence se je spreminjal. Komparacija: »Tu semkot orel med sinjinami / blizu Boga« (46) je npr. optimistična, samo<strong>za</strong>vestnapodoba pesnika, ki ga ne mučijo nikakršni dvomi. Povsem drugačna jemetafora: »Jaz nisem krvaveči pelikan« (226), ki jo dopolnjuje <strong>za</strong>gotovilo,da pesnik ne bo žaloval <strong>za</strong>radi neizpolnjenih sanj. Občutek življenjske razočaranostistopnjuje podoba vrana, pribitega na križ in prikrito primerjanegas Kristusom (266). Motiv ujetega in mučenega vrana je uporabil žeŽupančič v pesmi »Vran«, ki je izšla l. 1902 v almanahu Na novih potih.Joža Mahnič je opozoril, da je bil Župančičev »Vran« motivni osnutek <strong>za</strong>kondorja iz pesmi »Grobovi tulijo«, ta lik pa je »nastal seveda tudi podvplivom avtorja Les fleurs du mal« (Mahnič, 30). Simbolni pomen vranaizhaja iz germanske mitologije, v kateri je vran znanilec smrti. Nemški22
DARJA PAVLIČ: KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA: ANALIZA PODOBJAekspresionisti so »podobo stopnjevali do skrajne odurnosti, ta pa kot izraznotranjih razmer ne dopušča nobenega dvoma o obsegu duševnega pretresa«(Cosentino, 57). Kosovelov ujeti vran bolj spominja na plemenitegaalbatrosa ali kondorja, kot npr. na Traklove vrane, ki »<strong>za</strong>teglo vrešče«, ko<strong>za</strong>vohajo mrhovino (»Die Raben«).Najbolj značilna Kosovelova ptica je brinjevka. V »Pesmi«, ki jo jeAnton Ocvirk postavil na <strong>za</strong>četek prve knjige Zbranega dela, je brinjevkav vlogi komparanda: pesnik govori o besedi, ta »kakor brinjevka na Kras /privrši v lahnem letu« (I 9). Brinjevko ustrelijo in pesnik se vpraša: »Pokajsi prišla, misel, na Kras / v ta turobni jesenski čas?« (9). Beseda ali misel ninatančno opredeljena, o njej izvemo le to, da je nekaj izjemnega v množiciostalih besed. Če predpostavimo, da gre <strong>za</strong> pesnikovo besedo oz. njegovopoezijo, ostane odprto vprašanje, kdo so metaforični lovci. Motiv ujetegaptiča je znan iz Baudelaira, njegov albatros je simbol pesnika, ki se v svojiustvarjalnosti bliža absolutu ali neizrekljivemu, dokler mu tega ne preprečijoskrivnostni lovci. Župančičevega ujetega kondorja (Čez plan, 112)omejuje povprečnost ljudi, <strong>za</strong> Kosovelove lovce pa je uveljavljena razlaga,ki izhaja iz politične situacije na Krasu po 1. svetovni vojni. Po tej razlagilovci, o katerih piše Kosovel, niso metafora, ampak realni italijanski lovcina brinjevke. Tako kot so ti lovci iztrebljali ptice, so italijanski fašisti ogrožaliprimorske Slovence. Brinjevke se torej običajno interpretira kot simbolklasičnega tipa: njihova usoda je analogna usodi primorskih Slovencev,hkrati pa so tudi sinekdoha, saj predstavljajo del ogroženega življa. S to interpretacijoseveda ne odpade možnost, da bi brinjevke razlagali kot metaforo<strong>za</strong> pesnika oz. njegovo poezijo, lovce pa kot metaforo <strong>za</strong> ljudi ali sile,ki to poezijo ubijajo. Poleg italijanskih fašistov je bil to morda še kdo drug.Tudi v ciklu »Muke« (I 265–268), v katerega je vključena že omenjena podobavrana, pribitega na križ, Kosovel neposredno ne pove, kdo je vranovmučitelj. Vran je metafora <strong>za</strong> pesnika, ki išče (neobstoječo) resnico, edinaresnica je muka oz. smrt. Kosovel s krvavečim vranom primerja človeka,ki »hodi po promenadi in laže« in <strong>za</strong>man išče »besedo, / <strong>za</strong>man prirodo«(267). Njegovi mučitelji so morda predstavniki meščanskega, kapitalističnegareda, toda lirski subjekt je ogrožen predvsem <strong>za</strong>radi splošnega stanjadobe: vstopil je v zlagani, zmaterializirani svet in ne zmore več občutiti»mehkega valovanja sanj« (265). Ko spozna resnico o odrešujoči močismrti, pravi: »In zdaj ne trepečem več / in kri ne curlja več od perutnic«(268). V <strong>za</strong>ključnih verzih vran prerašča v simbol, soroden ptici v sinjini:tako kot ona se tudi vran prepusti smrti in s tem transcendenci (268). Vrankot metafora <strong>za</strong> pesnika izhaja iz romantične predstave o vzvišenosti pesniškegapoklica. Kosovel je stopnjeval temo o ogroženosti, saj njegov vrandoživlja prave eksistencialne muke v razčlovečenem svetu. V podobah, skaterimi je opisano mučenje, zlasti v prikriti komparaciji s Kristusom, jeprisotna hiperbolika, ki bi jo lahko imeli <strong>za</strong> znamenje ekspresionizma.Delež podob, ki govorijo o živalih, je v Integralih zelo velik. Podobamptic in metuljev je Kosovel pridružil pravi bestiarij: mačke, konje, žabe,podgano, orangutana, tigra, martinčka, kačo, ribe, kuščarico, netopirje.Podobe ptic so zelo tradicionalne, ne razlikujejo se od podob, kakršne je23
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAKosovel uporabljal v poeziji pred Integrali. Značilna je naslednja sinekdoha,ki človeka enači s ptico: »V prsih čutiš peroti, / pa bi se razpel« (II 22).Nenavaden je le kontekst, v katerega je umeščena ta podoba.Toda Kosovel je z nekaterimi podobami živali presekal tradicionalni,logični model ustvarjanja podob. Take podobe se izmikajo interpretacijiin jih lahko imenujemo absolutne metafore. Mednje sodita naslednji podobi:»Enooka riba / plava v temi, / črnooka« (II 82); »orangutan« (48).Interpretacijsko <strong>za</strong>nimiv je naslednji primer: »Zeleni žabji kralj / jaha nakostanju« (48). Ta podoba je zgleden primer nadrealističnega ustvarjanja,saj je sintaktično pravilna konstrukcija napolnjena z elementi, ki semantičnone sodijo skupaj. Kontekstualna obravnava ublaži drznost podobe:kostanji so zelenje, <strong>za</strong> katerim spi okno, v njem »blesti mesec / in čudežnapokrajina«. Glagol jahati lahko razložimo kot metaforo tradicionalnegatipa, zeleni žabji kralj pa pripada semantičnemu polju čudežne pokrajine.V pesmi so omenjene nekatere države in sklepamo lahko, da je v žabospremenjen politični voditelj. Taka razlaga podobe nas seveda ne morepripeljati do pravega pomena, ki bi se ga dalo izraziti opisno, govorimolahko samo o učinku. V pesmi z naslovom »Žandarji« je Kosovel še enkratuporabil podobo žab, tudi tokrat v političnem kontekstu: »zeleni parlamentžab« (62). Tokrat so žabe metafora <strong>za</strong> poslance, ki regljajo, lahko pa tudi <strong>za</strong>žandarje, ki so – kot opo<strong>za</strong>rja Ocvirk – nosili zelene uniforme (pomenljivaje tudi ponovitev zloga ža). To pomeni, da je Kosovel poslance posrednoizenačil z žandarji, <strong>za</strong> katere je <strong>za</strong>pisal, da so ljudje najnižje kvalitete.Opazen delež živalskih podob v Integralih pomenijo komparacije (II 36,62, 105, 109, 168), precej pa je tudi simbolov. Podgano iz »Pesmi št. X«, kiumira na podstrešju, lahko interpretiramo kot simbol klasičnega tipa: njenausoda je podobna usodi ljudi, hkrati pa na način sinekdohe opo<strong>za</strong>rja naneuresničevanje »človečanskih idealov«, med katerimi je na prvem mestuprepoved ubijanja. Ob modrih konjih, pojavijo se na več mestih, je AntonOcvirk opozoril na ekspresionistične slikarje, ki so si nadeli skupinsko ime»Modri jezdec«. Med njimi je bil Franz Marc, znan po velikem številu slik,ki prikazujejo modre konje. Kosovel jih je uporabil kot simbol, Ocvirk jihje imel <strong>za</strong> »znanilce bližajoče se smrti« (II 656). V podobi, ki je tehničnogenitivna metafora, je ta simbolni pomen dešifriran: »Modri konji mrliškegasna« (177). Ocvirk je isti simbolni pomen pripisal tudi Kosovelovimmetuljem iz Integralov (140, 153, 173). Smrt, ki jo simbolizirajo modrikonji, pomeni združitev s transcendenco, podobe metuljev pa po naši presojisimbolizirajo bližino transcendence.VodaV motivno področje vode spadajo Kosovelove podobe morja, jezer, ribnika,rek, slapov, vrelcev in gejzirjev. Njihovo skupno število je zelo veliko, dodatnopa ga povečajo še podobe mornarjev, čolnov, veslačev ipd. Podobo samevode je Kosovel uporabil v »Ekstazi smrti«, kjer ugotavlja, da »vode ni več vEvropi […], vode ni, da bi opral svojo krivdo, […] da pogasil bi z njo / žejo24
DARJA PAVLIČ: KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA: ANALIZA PODOBJApo tihi, zeleni jutranji prirodi« (I 304–305). V tej podobi Kosovel dešifrirasimbolni pomen vode kot vira življenja in sredstva <strong>za</strong> očiščenje, preporod.Podobo morja je Kosovel uporabil več kot dvajsetkrat. V nekaj primerihje morje metafora <strong>za</strong> množico nečesa: borovo morje (I 16, 64) je metafora<strong>za</strong> borov gozd, zeleno morje (325) je metafora <strong>za</strong> travnike, zvezdno morje(286) pomeni zvezde. Morje je komparand <strong>za</strong> nemir (196) in <strong>za</strong> obrazemaščevanj, »ki dvigajo se kot morje vsak hip / v tej ozki strugi gnijočih rib«(259). Ta podoba je razmeroma redek primer estetike grdega v Kosovelovipoeziji. Ozka struga gnijočih rib je metafora <strong>za</strong> življenjske razmere delavcev,nastala je <strong>za</strong>radi metonimične bližine rib in morja.Za vse simbole je značilna ambivalentnost – morje je npr. dajalec inhkrati uničevalec življenja. Kosovel razvija tako pozitivni kot negativnisimbolni pomen morja, največkrat s pomočjo barvne simbolike. Bela morja(I 72, 328) so <strong>za</strong>radi beline pozitiven simbol, ob njih poteka mirno, urejenoživljenje. Sinje morje (291) je simbol duhovnega očiščenja, ki poteka spomočjo transcendence, pa tudi simbol svobode, o kateri sanjajo jetniki (I371; II 57). Isti pomen ima srebrno morje (I 373) oz. morje, ki je z metaforoimenovano srebrna ravan in srebrna perut (371). Rdeče morje je metafora<strong>za</strong> svetlobo <strong>za</strong>hajajočega sonca, ki Evropi prinaša uničenje (304). Oblaki,ki krvavijo, so obarvali tudi »rdeče morje bolesti« (339), ki pa je metafora<strong>za</strong> pesnikove bolečine ob ljubezenskem neuspehu. V pesmi o jadru, ki nemore s srede morja, je barva morja simbolne narave: sivina žveplenih voda(400) simbolizira neuspešno iskanje <strong>za</strong>rje. Črni ocean smrti (354) je dešifriranisimbol. Tudi teman ocean (406) je dešifriran kot uničevalec vseh živih,vendar je hkrati tudi simbol preporoda, saj je bodočim življenje (410).Kosovel je večkrat uporabil simbol potopa, njegova raba ustre<strong>za</strong> razlagi,da je potop »znamenje klitja in preporoda, uničuje samo <strong>za</strong>to, ker so formeizrabljene in izčrpane, vedno pa mu sledita novo človeštvo in nova zgodovina.[…] Potop čisti in obnavlja kot krst, je neizmeren kolektivni krst, okaterem ne odloča človeška vest, temveč višja in suverena vest« (Chevalier,472). Motiv potopa ni samo svetopisemski, saj o njem govorijo številnimiti. Konec sveta ali biblično apokalipso so ljudje pričakovali v številnihzgodovinskih obdobjih, npr. ob koncu 1. tisočletja, pa tudi ob koncu 19. incelo 20. stoletja. Nemški ekspresionisti so idejo o koncu sveta pove<strong>za</strong>li skritiko civili<strong>za</strong>cije, v obdobju pred 1. svetovno vojno so celo verjeli, da bivojna pomenila tako očiščenje, kot ga simbolizira potop. V Kosovelovemčasu je evropsko javnost še vedno razburjala Spenglerjeva knjiga PropadZahoda. O svojem razumevanju ideje o propadu Evrope je Kosovel pisal vpredavanju »Umetnost in proletarec«: »Ako govorimo o propadu Evrope,mislimo na propad razpadajočega kapitalizma, ki sicer še skuša z vsemisredstvi kraljevati po Evropi, ki pa bo kakor vsaka krivica moral tekom letpropasti. Tako je tudi razumeti mojo pesem Eksta<strong>za</strong> smrti« (I 485). Simboliv »Ekstazi smrti« ustre<strong>za</strong>jo Kosovelovi (samo)interpretaciji: sonce najprejposkrbi, da vse utone v žgočem, rdečem morju, potem pa sije na mrliče zzlatimi žarki (304–305). Simbolni pomen potopa je v tem primeru pripisansoncu, običajno pa se očiščenje dogaja v pravem morju. Čeprav je potop nujen<strong>za</strong> prenovo človeštva, je samo dogajanje grozljivo. Grozljiva je tudi po-25
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAdoba človeka, ki se »utaplja, [a] ne more utopiti / se v težkih, svinčenosivihvalovih« (253). Utopitev pomeni smrt, vendar tudi preporod. Motiv potopaje najbolj razvil v »Tragediji na oceanu«: ocean simbolizira uničenje in očiščenje.Tudi v tem ciklu je Kosovel uporabil podobo utopljencev, ki »ne morejo/ se potopiti do dna, do dna, / a se ne morejo rešiti« (407). Ta podoba senavezuje na napoved iz Razodetja: »In v tistih dneh bodo iskali ljudje smrti,a ne bodo je našli« (9, 6). Rešitev je – paradoksalno – samo v strašni smrti.Zato je ambivalenten tudi simbol kapitana rešitelja oz. zveri, ki tistemu, ki ni»dobro dovolj potopljen, / z veslom razkolje glavo« (407). Simbol zveri jeznan iz Razodetja, pomeni antikrista. Tudi štirje veslači spominjajo na štiribiblične jezdece, le da jim je Kosovel pripisal nekoliko drugačno vlogo: namestoda bi katastrofo oznanjali, prosijo kralja, naj pride na pomoč.V slovenski poeziji so podobe mornarjev in čolnov značilne <strong>za</strong> AntonaVodnika, ki govori o rdečih (grešnih) in belih (nedolžnih, Bogu vdanih)mornarjih; njegova je tudi identifikacija »bil sem čoln na zlati vodi sanj«.O mornarjih in čolnih je pisal tudi Kosovel. Vodnikovemu hrepenenju potranscendenci se je zelo približal s podobo: »Vozil sem se z zlatim čolnom/ po rdečih vodah večera / med drevjem / in travnatimi bregovi. / Vozil semse / jaz, zlati mornar« (I 319). Znano je, da je Kosovel pred svojo smrtjopripravljal zbirko, ki naj bi nosila naslov Zlati čoln. Napisal je celo predgovor,v katerem pravi, da se je poslovil od mladeniča, ki je pisal »baržunastoliriko« (I 426). O tem slovesu govori tudi pesem, ki se <strong>za</strong>čne s prej citiranopodobo. Pravo nasprotje zlatega mornarja je mornar iz »Nokturna«,ki je svoj obraz skril <strong>za</strong> žolto jadro (213). Tudi ta mornar je metafora <strong>za</strong>pesnika, le da so njegove sanje prevrat. Svoj obraz skriva, ker hoče biti podobenBeethovnu, jadro pa je žolto <strong>za</strong>radi sonca, ki gori. Podobo zlategačolna je Kosovel trikrat uporabil v Integralih, Ocvirkova razlaga je, da jez njim označeval svojo neizdano pesniško zbirko. Ta interpretacija gotovodrži <strong>za</strong> vprašanje: »Zakaj si izpustil zlati čoln v močvirje?« (II 31), v obehostalih primerih (38, 46) pa je zlati čoln bolj verjetno metafora <strong>za</strong> pesnikoveduhovne avanture in iskanja, o katerih govorijo tudi druge podobe. Vpesmi z naslovom »Moja velika Nada« je Kosovel <strong>za</strong>pisal: »Mesec / nadmestom odhaja. / Sam / sem na beli obali. […] Jutri, čez teden, čez leto /mogoče odplavam« (118). Ideja odhoda je, kot ugotavlja Lado Kralj obprogramatičnem tekstu »Spomladi odjadramo!«, sorodna neprevedljivemuekspresionističnemu geslu »der Aufbruch«, vendar jo je Kosovel verjetnorazvil kongenialno (Kralj, 182–183). V omenjeni pesmi je Kosovel samonaka<strong>za</strong>l, da gre <strong>za</strong> odhod v vesolje oz. v transcendenco. Bolj neposredna jenaslednja podoba: »Vsak dan / jadramo v veliki Prostor / na belih čolnihSanj« (169). Tudi to podobo lahko primerjamo s prej citirano Vodnikovopodobo: tako Vodnik kot Kosovel se v transcendenco podajata z metaforičnimičolni in s pomočjo sanj.Vodnikovi mornarji so alegorija bogoiskateljstva. Tudi Kosovel je uporabilmetaforo potovanje – iskanje. »Nemi mornarji, neumrjoči« (I 400) soujeti na jadrnico sredi morja in ne morejo uzreti <strong>za</strong>rje jutranje. Graditelji, kiso podobni »mornarjem na potovanju, / ki vozijo skozi sivo sivino« (294),ugotavljajo, da je vsaka aktivnost <strong>za</strong>man. Podobe ujetosti in nemoči sredi26
DARJA PAVLIČ: KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA: ANALIZA PODOBJAmorja so metafore <strong>za</strong> pesnikovo doživljanje sveta oz. dobe. Metafora <strong>za</strong>nemoč je tudi podoba mladega mrliča, ki leži med rožami na ladji (401)oz. podoba mornarja med strupenimi rožami (404), saj se pasivno prepuščapotopu. Anton Ocvirk je domneval, da je Kosovel motiv mornarja, ki umremed rožami na svojem čolnu, prevzel iz ljudske pesmi. Šele v Integralih jeKosovel <strong>za</strong>pisal podobo, ki razodeva optimizem: to je metafora mornarja,»izstreljenega v večnost« (II 124).SoncePodob, ki spadajo v motivni krog sonca, je v Kosovelovi poeziji več kotosemdeset, če prištejemo še pesmi iz Integralov, pa več kot stodvajset.Poleg podob, ki omenjajo sonce ali <strong>za</strong>rjo, lahko v to območje uvrstimo tudipodobe bleščanja in žarenja, če to prihaja od sonca. Izvor svetlobe so namrečtudi ogenj ali požar, luč na oknu in nekajkrat elektrika.Kosovel je rad opisoval bleščanje sonca in sončne <strong>za</strong>hode na Krasu. Pritem je velikokrat uporabil metaforo ognja ali gorenja (I 19, 20, 22, 213).Za sijanje sonca je uporabljal tudi druge metafore (58, 83, 323) ali pa ježarenje sonca metonimično pripisal oblakom (30, 31, 49, 80, 354). Ker jepesnik soncu pripisoval tudi simbolne lastnosti, je presoja o tem, v katerihpodobah je sonce samo opisano in v katerih je simbol, velikokrat otežena.Sonce lahko skoraj vedno interpretiramo tudi kot simbol. Kosovel je simbolnipomen sonca včasih naka<strong>za</strong>l ali dešifriral, npr. kot vir življenja inoptimizma (21). Ta simbolni pomen imajo tudi zlati večerni oblaki (30).Ko pesnik vzklika: »Sonce, ah, to zlato sonce!« (323) ali »Sonce. Sonce.Sonce« (325), mu prav tako pripisuje simbolni pomen.Kosovel se je v nekaterih svojih pesmih oz. podobah sonca zelo približalŽupančičevemu vitalizmu, toda simbolni pomen sonca je v drugih podobahdrugačen. Kosovel sam se je te spremembe <strong>za</strong>vedal, saj je <strong>za</strong>pisal, da »sonceje palo / s svojih višin, / in kot da je <strong>za</strong>sijalo / vse drugo, manj zlato, / boljjasno, bolj živo, / sem kot prerojen / stopil na breg« (I 319). Manj zlato je npr.sonce, ki »odseva, / kot da bi mrtvo na nebu sijalo« (253). Kosovel je v podobi:»Krvavo sonce že gori« (233), sonce spremenil v simbol prihajajočegaupora množic. Manj socialno je naravnana pesem »Večerno sonce«, v kateriugotavlja, da »sonce še to travo bo požgalo / in še sonce, sonce bo ugasnilo«(131). Simbolni pomen, ki ga privzema sonce v tej podobi, ni več življenjskioptimizem, ampak prej obratno: namesto da bi sonce dajalo življenje,ga uničuje. Tudi v »Ekstazi smrti« je <strong>za</strong>hajajoče sonce simbolni uničevalec,vendar hkrati omogoča, da se bo lahko razvilo novo življenje. Šele ko bodovsi ljudje mrtvi, bo sonce spet sijalo »z zlatimi žarki« (305). V podobi »soncevečerno žge, / žge, a me ne more izžgati« (344) je sonce prav tako ambivalentno:ko uničuje staro življenje, pripravlja pot novemu. To novo življenjesimbolizira »sončni bog Svetovit« (346), <strong>za</strong> njim hoče iti pesnik.Podobe sonca so zelo pogoste tudi v Integralih. Velikokrat so soncu pripisanepozitivne simbolne lastnosti, malo pa je podob, ki sonce deestetizirajokot naslednja komparacija: »Debelo sonce se izprehaja / kakor debela27
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAmesarica / po vasi. / To sonce je žalostno« (II 21). V pesmi z naslovom»Sodobna mrtvila« pesnik ugotavlja, da se je treba boriti <strong>za</strong> »novo religijosonca«, ker je sonce »edino, kar je še lepega / na svetu« (148), vendar sev resnici <strong>za</strong>vzema <strong>za</strong> religijo človeka, saj na koncu pesmi <strong>za</strong>piše metaforo»sonce – človek«. Bolj drzna je metafora »sonce srebrno, / admiral« (60),Kosovel jo je uporabil v pesmi »Detektiv št. 16«, potem ko je v pesmi paralelnorazvijal motiv sonca v zimskem jutru in hišne preiskave na pesnikovemdomu. Anton Ocvirk je opozoril, da je Kosovel poznal dadaistično pesemz naslovom »Admiral«. Ker je Kosovel med drugim <strong>za</strong>pisal, da pesemhiti »na srebrnih perutih / zimskega sončnega / vetra«, je »sonce srebrno, /admiral« morda dvojna metafora <strong>za</strong> pesem. V »Žalitvi bele postelje kraljaHiponeandra Hopu« so žalilci imenovani »skrunilci Sonca« (49), s temje postelja kralja Hiponeandra (pračloveka) posredno izenačena s soncem.Drzna je tudi metafora »policaji sonca« (12), vendar je iz konteksta mogočerazbrati, da gre <strong>za</strong> ljudi, ki so brez duha in <strong>za</strong>to ne marajo svetlobe.SrcePodobe srca so v Kosovelovi poeziji približno tako pogoste kot podobesonca, to pomeni, da so ene najpogostejših. V skladu s tradicijo je srcesimbolno središče čustvenega življenja. Kosovel srce opisuje kot podvrženospremembam v razpoloženju, največkrat je bolno, žalostno, poteptano,nanj lega smrt itd. Podob, v katerih je srce simbolno duhovno središče, jerazmeroma malo (I 206, 207). Metafora »moje srce je razbito svetišče«(309) govori o izgubljeni veri v lastne sanje. Toda srce je našlo novo vero– verjame v bodočega človeka (240). Melanholijo srca je nadomestil »valsvetal poguma, moči«, ki prihaja iz srca (237).Podobe srca so zelo pogoste tudi v Integralih, v tej zbirki pesnik negovori več toliko o lastnem srcu in njegovem trpljenju, kot o srcih drugihljudi. Njegovo srce je »odprto v večnost […] iz kaosa v kozmos« (II 181),a hkrati socialno čuteče (43) in tako veliko, da skozenj »stopa veliki slon«(34). Nasprotno pa so srca ljudi majhna (34), v njih so zlati dolarji (20),»njihova srca so kamen […] so suha« (168). Kosovel je svojo kritiko modernedružbe izrazil s številnimi metaforami o srcu: srce v alkoholu (29),srce – Trst je bolno (55), civili<strong>za</strong>cija je brez srca (73), v srcih ni oltarja človeku(92). Tudi njegovi pozivi k preobrazbi in uporu so namenjeni srcem:»Rad bi šel skozi srca ljudi« (34), »srca budim« (48), »lajajte, srca« (72).DušaPodobe duše in podobe srca so približno enako pogoste, prav tako lahkoprimerjamo lastnosti, ki so pripisane srcu oz. duši. Duša je tako kot srcesredišče čustev in občutkov. Tudi duša je pogosto bolna, potrta ali preplašenain tako kot srce hrepeni po Božji tolažbi. Kosovel je v ljubezenskihpesmih pogosteje uporabljal podobe duše kot podobe srca. V sveti samotinaj bi duša spoznala Boga (I 207), toda tudi v motivnem območju duše se28
DARJA PAVLIČ: KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA: ANALIZA PODOBJAzrcali Kosovelov prehod k socialnim temam (213, 242, 279). Več podobgovori o tem, da morajo duše doživeti preobrazbo, značilna je metaforagorenja: »Bolni človek naj pade, / bolne duše, izgorite!« (260).V Integralih so podobe duš redkejše od podob srca, vendar so z njimitesno pove<strong>za</strong>ne, velikokrat celo nastopajo v nizu. Ljudje so brez src in brezduš, Kosovel govori o »evakuaciji duš« (II 73). Najbolj drzna podoba z motivnegaobmočja duše je metafora, dopolnjena s komparacijo: »Torpedovkajadrna / kot krogla, / pognana v noč, / beži moja duša« (124). S to podobose je Kosovel motivno oddaljil od tradicionalne poezije, vendar je <strong>za</strong> njegovepodobe srca in duše značilno, da na direkten način izražajo čustva.Religiozne podobeReligiozne podobe so v Kosovelovi poeziji še pogostejše od podob sonca,duše ali srca: čez stodvajset jih je. Med religioznimi podobami je najpomembnejšidelež podob, v katerih nastopa Bog. Kosovel pogosto izražahrepenenje po Bogu, tolažbe ne bi prinesel samo Božji glas, ampak tudinjegov objem (I 21), poljub (207) in sploh njegova prisotnost, ki jo pesnikvčasih čuti (46, 68, 201, 272, 293).Poleg podob, s katerimi je jasno izražena vera v Boga, se nahajajo podobe,ki govorijo o odsotnem, nespoznanem, skrivajočem se Bogu: Bog jeskrivnosti skrivnost, pesnik ga sprašuje, ali je širjava, globokost, brezsmerjein vsemu smer, nevidno Središče vseh središč, ali je Oče ali Brat, ki samov daljah duš živi (I 196). Naštete metafore niso edine, s katerimi je Kosovelopisoval Boga, imenoval ga je tudi Neznani (382, 383) in duše moje tečajnik(383). Kljub silovitim prošnjam, naj pomaga posamezniku in človeštvu,Bog molči (383), štirje veslači ga kličejo <strong>za</strong>man (411). Ugotovitev,da ga ni (383), v kontekstu Kosovelove poezije ne pomeni nujno, da Bogne obstaja, ampak zgolj to, da Bog ne posreduje na prošnjo ljudi, da se neprikaže človeškim očem, da ostaja skrit ali odsoten.V Integralih je Bog omenjen samo nekajkrat, ugotovitev, da je Bog »narazpoloženju« (II 32), je po Ocvirkovih besedah <strong>za</strong>menjala prvotno podobaBoga, ki je bil na dopustu. Ta podoba bi se ujemala z idejo o odsotnemBogu. Podoba Boga, ki je »na razpoloženju«, govori predvsem o odnosuljudi do Boga.Kosovel je religiozne podobe pogosto uporabljal v pesmih s socialno alipolitično temo. Metafori <strong>za</strong> bodočnost sta npr. paradiž (I 286) in nov tempelj(180); pričakovanja množic so sveta, pesnik jih metaforično izenači ssvetiščem, nanašajo pa se na kralja, ki bo vstal (181). Kralj je v tem primerumetafora <strong>za</strong> maščevalca politično <strong>za</strong>tiranih Kraševcev. Kosovelovepredstave o voditelju socialne in politične revolucije so (tako kot predstavenekaterih ekspresionistov) religiozno obarvane. V beli bodočnosti je mestotudi <strong>za</strong> Boga (250). Religiozni motivi so v nekaterih podobah izrazito preoblikovani(230, 249, 287). V Integralih so pogoste podobe, ki govorijoo novi religiji (II 148), o veri v človeštvo (179). Človek naj bi dal svoježivljenje <strong>za</strong> novo cerkev ter roke in srce <strong>za</strong> oltarje bodočnosti (153).29
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAGlasbaS podobami, ki spadajo v motivno območje glasbe, je Kosovel med drugimizražal to, kar bi s pojmom iz francoskega simbolizma lahko imenovalistanje duše. Gre <strong>za</strong> razpoloženje, ki ga ni mogoče natančno določiti inopisati, saj niha med žalostjo, melanholijo, nemirom, hrepenenjem itd. Vpesmi »Rad te imam« (I 338) igra klavir ljubljeno dekle, lirski subjekt pa»posluša kot kamnit«, ker njeno igranje dojema kot izraz duše oz. njenebolesti. Pesem je verjetno vsaj deloma avtobiografska, saj vemo, da je bilaKosovelova sestra odlična pianistka.Da bi izrazil razpoloženje, je Kosovel večkrat uporabil sinestezijo, ki sicerni najbolj značilno sredstvo v njegovi poeziji. Poleg obledelih sinestezij kotsta sladka pesem (I 68) in svetli akordi (128), je uporabljal tudi drznejše:mehek je zvok Ave Marije (23), blesteče in svetlo zvonjenje (47), ostra tišina(195). Zvoki zvonov, orgel, predvsem pa klavirja v nekaterih primerih preraščajov simbole, ki med drugim izražajo minljivost vsega. Namesto drhtečevioline, ki je značilna <strong>za</strong> francoske simboliste, je Kosovel uporabil podoboihtečega klavirja: »Na mrtvem klavirju akord <strong>za</strong>ihti / in v večnost spet potopise« (166). Značilno <strong>za</strong> to podobo je, da sta glasbilo in zvok personificirana.Tudi v pesmi »Skica na koncertu« je klavir personificiran, toda nato je pozornostpreusmerjena na pianista, ki je »sprostrl bele roke […]. // Tiho, ko da načrnem / mramornem jezeru / odplavala laboda bela sta / neskončnosti iskat«(321). Kosovel je največkrat ravnal tako, kot v tej pesmi: čeprav je klavirpersonificiral in mu pripisal simbolni pomen, je pravi subjekt ali nosilec razpoloženjapianist, s tem pa je simbolni pomen klavirja dešifriran.V pesmi z naslovom »Meditacija ob klavirju« je Kosovel med drugim<strong>za</strong>pisal metaforo: »Moje besede so rahlo igranje klavirja / iz zlatega okna vnoč« (I 313). Povsem drugačno predstavo o lastni poeziji je izrazil z metaforo»Moja pesem je eksplozija, / divja raztrganost. Disharmonija« (229).S pomenskim poljem (glasbene) disharmonije je pove<strong>za</strong>na tudi naslednjaidentifikacija iz pesmi z naslovom »Nokturno«: »Pianist sem z železnimirokami« (213). Železne roke sovzpostavljajo pomensko polje raztrganosti,eksplozije, z njimi pesnik »razbija svoj beli Kras« (213). Metaforo rahloigranje klavirja je torej nadomestila metafora pianista, ki razbija. Kosovelje domiselno izkoristil dvojni metaforični pomen glagola razbijati: poleg žeobledele metafore razbijati po klavirju je metaforično tudi razbijanje Krasa.Metaforična veriga poteka torej takole: pisati nesentimentalne pesmi – razbijatipo klavirju – razbijati Kras.Podobe klavirja so v Integralih manj pogoste kot v prvi knjigi KosovelovegaZbranega dela, vendar še zmeraj raznovrstne. Podobe, ki izražajoveselje (II 112), žalost (114) in nemir (103), so v vseh pogledih tradicionalne.Bolj nenavadno je gradivo, ki ga je Kosovel uporabil v pesmi »Kons:mačka«. Mačka, ki skače po klavirju in se čudi, da ta poje, je verjetnometafora <strong>za</strong> ljudi, ki mislijo, da znajo pesniti. Kosovel se ni spuščal v radikalnejezikovne eksperimente, ki bi bili sami sebi namen, njegova poezijaje vedno ohranjala sporočilno plast – ta pa ne more biti plod naključja. Vpesmi z naslovom »Moj črni tintnik« se je Kosovel posmehnil pesnikomdrugačne šole: »Na senu leži melanholični maček. / Cvili s svojo zlato vi-30
DARJA PAVLIČ: KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA: ANALIZA PODOBJAolino!« (24). Omenili smo že, da je bila violina instrument simbolistov,posebno ljubezen do mačk pa je gojil npr. Baudelaire.TehnikaV Kosovelovi poeziji prevladujejo podobe narave, večjo koncentracijo urbanihpodob, predvsem prevoznih sredstev, prinašajo šele Integrali. Kosovelnajvečkrat omenja vlak (osemkrat) in avtomobile (petkrat), po dvakrataeroplane in tramvaj, enkrat torpedovko. Podobe so pogosto deskriptivne,Kosovel jih vključuje v asociativne nize, uporablja tehniko montaže disparatnihpodob, redko pa doseže impersonalnost. Značilen primer je »Kons:ABC«: »Ostani mrzlo, srce! / Cinik. / Transformator. / Orient ekspres vPariz na viaduktu. / Okovi na rokah. / Avtomobili tečejo. / Jaz ne morem./ Moja misel – elektrika je v Parizu.« (II 13). Podobi vlaka in avtomobilovsta deskriptivni, šele v pove<strong>za</strong>vi z ostalimi podobami pridobita metaforičnovrednost: označujeta gibanje, ki si ga lirski subjekt samo želi, ne more paga uresničiti. V nasprotju s futurističnim glorificiranjem gibanja in tehnikeje v Kosovelovi pesmi v središču pozornosti nemoč lirskega subjekta.Podoba »Aeroplani širijo obzorje, / dvigajo kozmično <strong>za</strong>vest« (160) iz pesmi»Jesen« se vsaj na videz približuje ideji o napredku, ki ga prinaša modernadoba tehnike – toda kako naj potem razumemo <strong>za</strong>ključna ver<strong>za</strong>: »2000metrov v zraku / perspektive ni več« (160)? S stališča futurizma je povsemnesprejemljiva komparacija vlaka in polža (29), pa tudi ugotovitev, da je»duh hitrejši od orient-ekspresa« (15), ni ravno pravoverna. Kosovelova poetikaizhaja iz ideje o novem človeku, ki »ni avtomat« (33). Ta humanističnaideja ni združljiva s futurističnim poveličevanjem tehnike, pa tudi s poglediruskih konstruktivistov ne, kot je ugotovil Franc Zadravec (1988, 214).Kosovel je z razširitvijo kataloga podob na področje tehnike pridobilpomemben vir <strong>za</strong> drzne metafore in komparacije: lirski subjekt se primerjaz »električno iskro, / ki skače« (II 46), se identificira z rdečo raketo (125),svojo dušo imenuje »torpedovka jadrna / kot krogla, / pognana v noč«(124). Vse te podobe izražajo fizični in psihični nemir človeka, ki hoče dosečiosebno in socialno preobrazbo.SklepČe presojo o tradicionalnosti in modernosti poezije Srečka Kosovela opremona analizo podobja v njegovi poeziji, lahko ugotovimo naslednje:1. Anali<strong>za</strong> podobja na strukturni ravni je poka<strong>za</strong>la, da je Kosovel sredstvat. i. moderne metaforike uporabljal samo v manjšem delu svoje poezije.V Integralih je mogoče najti precej drznih metafor, nekaj primerov absolutnemetafore (enooka riba, zeleni žabji kralj, skrunilci sonca) in posamezneprimere analogij oz. identifikacijskih podob (moja misel – elektrika;sonce, admiral), kar pa je veliko premalo, da bi Kosovela lahko pove<strong>za</strong>lis futurizmom ali nadrealizmom. Simbolističnih simbolov, ki izražajo hori-31
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAzontalne korespondence, Kosovel ni uporabljal, izjema sta klavir in jezero.Kosovel je uporabljal veliko t. i. naravnih simbolov, toda njihov pomen jekonvencionalen in največkrat dešifriran. Poleg naravnih je uporabljal tudibiblijske simbole, ni pa preoblikoval mitoloških simbolov ali spajal abstraktnegas konkretnim (izjema je klavir), kar je po mnenju Anne Balakianbistvena značilnost simbolizma. Kosovel je simbole največkrat vključevalv metafore ali komparacije, t. i. čistih simbolov je malo. Uporabljal je velikodeskriptivnih podob. Velik del Kosovelove poezije je bližji realizmu(predvsem v čistih impresijah) in romantiki (predvsem v pesmih, ki izražajopodobnost med naravo in človekom), kakor simbolizmu.2. Hugo Friedrich je ob slovnični analizi modernih metafor opozoril napribliževanje k popolni identifikaciji dveh predmetov ali členov. V skupinoidentifikacijskih metafor modernega tipa pri Kosovelu sodijo tiste redkemetafore, ki so nastale z apozicijo. Njegove genitivne metafore so še povsemtradicionalne. Tehnike prelivanja v njegovi poeziji nismo <strong>za</strong>sledili.3. Na kompozicijski ravni so <strong>za</strong> simbolistično poezijo značilne mrežesimbolov, teh pa Kosovel ni uporabljal. Integrali so primer montaže disparatnihpodob. Pobudo <strong>za</strong> tak način pesnjenja je Kosovel lahko dobil izrazličnih virov, saj je značilen <strong>za</strong> vsa modernistična gibanja. Kosovel jemestoma uporabljal tudi nominalni stil, vendar je, kot opo<strong>za</strong>rja Lado Kralj,pravi zgled nominalnega stila v slovenskem ekspresionizmu Voduškovapesem »Mesto v noči« (Kralj, 179). V Kosovelovi poeziji je – poleg pove<strong>za</strong>nostipodob na tematski ravni – močan kohezivni element predvsemlirski subjekt. Impersonalne so samo nekatere pesmi iz »Integralov«.4. Motivna območja, iz katerih je Kosovel največ <strong>za</strong>jemal, so: rože, živali,voda, sonce, mesec, noč, zvezde, nebo, srce, duša, religiozne podobe,glasba, tehnika. Ker se isti motivi pojavljajo v različnih smereh in gibanjih,presoje o tem, v katero smer ali gibanje spada Kosovelova poezija, nemoremo opreti samo na katalog podob. Če upoštevamo tematsko funkcijoposameznih podob, lahko ugotovimo predvsem sorodnost z romantično inekspresionistično poezijo.LiteraturaBalakian, Anna: The Symbolist Movement. A critical appraisal. New York:University Press, 1977.Balakian, Anna (ur.): The Symbolist Movement. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado,1984.Balakian, Anna: »The Symbol and after.« Neohelicon 1 (1991).Balakian, Anna: The Fiction of the Poet. From Mallarmé to the Post-symbolistMode. Princeton: University Press, 1992.Bernik, France: »Impresionizem v slovenski liriki.« XVI. seminar slovenskegajezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana, 1980.Black, Max: Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, New York: Cornel University Press,1962.Bowra, C. M: The Heritage of Symbolism. New York: Schocken Books, 1961.Chevalier, Jean in Gheerbrant, Alain: Slovar simbolov. [Dictionnaire des Symboles]Ljubljana: MK, 1993.32
DARJA PAVLIČ: KOSOVEL IN MODERNA POEZIJA: ANALIZA PODOBJACosentino, Christine: Tierbilder in der Lyrik des Expressionismus. Bonn:Bouvier Verlag, 1972.Friedrich, Hugo: Struktura moderne lirike. [Die Struktur der moderne Lyrik]Ljubljana: CZ, 1972.Hillmann, Heinz: Bildlichkeit der deutschen Romantik. Frankfurt: AthenäumVerlag, 1971.Killy, Walther: Wandlungen des lyrischen Bildes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1956.Kos, Janko: Romantika. Ljubljana: DZS, 1980.Kos, Janko: »K vprašanju literarnih smeri in obdobij.« Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 1(1982).Kosovel, Srečko: Pesmi. Zbrano delo I. Ur. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS, 1964.Kosovel, Srečko: Integrali. Zbrano delo II. Ur. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS,1974.Kralj, Lado: Ekspresionizem. Ljubljana: DZS, 1986.Kurz, Gerhard: Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1982.Mahnič, Joža: Župančič in Baudelaire. (Disertacija). Ljubljana, 1944.Marinetti, F. T: Teoria e invenzione futurista. Milano: Arnoldo MondadoriEditore, 1983.Marsch, Edgar: »Die lyrische Chiffre.« Sprachkunst 1 (1970).Michaud, Guy: Message poétique du symbolisme. Paris: Librairie Nizet, 1951.Neumann, Gerhard: »Die absolute Metapher.« Poetica 3 (1970).OBDOBJE simbolizma v slovenskem jeziku, <strong>književnost</strong>i in kulturi. IV/1. Ljubljana:Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1983.OBDOBJE ekspresionizma v slovenskem jeziku, <strong>književnost</strong>i in kulturi. V. Ljubljana:Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1984.Paternu, Boris: »Kosovelova fa<strong>za</strong> slovenskega pesniškega modernizma.« Slavističnarevija 2 (1985).Paternu, Boris: Obdobja in slogi v slovenski <strong>književnost</strong>i. Ljubljana: MK, 1989.Pastor, Eckart: Studien zum dichterischen Bild im frühen französischenSurrealismus. Paris: Société d´Edition les Belles Lettres, 1972.Richards, I. A.: The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London, Oxford, New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1976. (1936).Romani, Bruno: Dal simbolismo al futurismo. Firenze: Edizioni Remo Sandron,1970.Rothe, Wolfgang (Ed.): Expressionismus als Literatur. Bern und München:Francke Verlag, 1969.Schneider, Karl Ludwig: Der bildhafte Ausdruck in den Dichtungen GeorgHeyms, Georg Trakls und Ernst Stadlers. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1968(3. izdaja).Sørensen, Bengt Algot: Allegorie und Symbol. Texte zur Theorie des dichterischenBildes im 18. und frühe 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag,1972.Troha, Vera: Futurizem. Ljubljana: DZS, 1993.Vodnik, Anton: Žalostne roke. Vigilije. Zbrano delo I. Ur. France Pibernik.Ljubljana: DZS, 1993.Vordtriede, Werner: Novalis und die französischen Symbolisten. Stuttgart: W.Kohlhammer Verlag, 1963.Vrečko, Janez: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem.Maribor: Obzorja, 1986.Weinrich, Harald: »Semantik der kühnen Metapher.« Dvjs 3 (1963).33
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAWeisgerber, Jean (ur.): Les avant-gardes littéraires au XX e siècle. I Histoire, IITheorie. Budapest, 1984.Weisstein, Ulrich (ur.): Expressionism as an International Literary Phenomenon.Paris-Budapest, 1984.Wellek, René: »The Term and Concept of Symbolism in Literary History.«Discriminations. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1971.Zadravec, Franc: »Kosovelova impresionistična lirika.« Razprave 11 (1987).Zadravec, Franc: »Srečko Kosovel in ruski pesniški konstruktivizem – podobnostiin razločki.« Slavistična revija 2 (1988).Zadravec, Franc: Slovenska ekspresionistična literatura. Murska Sobota: Pomurska<strong>za</strong>ložba; Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut FF, 1993.Župančič, Oton: Čaša opojnosti. Čez plan. Zbrano delo I. Ur. Josip Vidmar andDušan Pirjevec. Ljubljana: DZS, 1956.Župančič, Oton: Samogovori. Mlada pota. Zbrano delo II. Ur. Josip Vidmar andDušan Pirjevec. Ljubljana: DZS, 1957.• POVZETEKUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / pesniško podobje /metaforika / metafora / simbolRazprava je <strong>za</strong>stavljena tako, da ob analizi motivnih sklopov, iz katerih jeKosovel največkrat jemal svoje podobe, ugotavlja tudi strukturne, slovničnein kompozicijske značilnosti njegovega podobja. Glavne ugotovitve je mogočestrniti v štiri točke:1. Kosovel je sredstva t. i. moderne metaforike uporabljal samo v manjšemdelu svoje poezije. V Integralih je mogoče najti precej drznih metafor, nekajprimerov absolutne metafore in posamezne primere analogij oz. identifikacijskihpodob, kar pa je veliko premalo, da bi Kosovela lahko pove<strong>za</strong>li s futurizmomali nadrealizmom. Simbolističnih simbolov, ki izražajo horizontalnekorespondence, Kosovel ni uporabljal, izjema sta klavir in jezero. V njegovipoeziji je veliko t. i. naravnih simbolov, toda njihov pomen je konvencionalenin največkrat dešifriran. Velik del Kosovelove poezije je blizu realizmu (predvsemv čistih impresijah) in romantiki (predvsem v pesmih, ki izražajo podobnostmed naravo in človekom).2. V skupino identifikacijskih metafor modernega tipa pri Kosovelu sodijotiste redke metafore, ki so nastale z apozicijo. Njegove genitivne metafore so šepovsem tradicionalne, tehnike prelivanja v njegovi poeziji nismo <strong>za</strong>sledili.3. Za simbolistično poezijo so značilne mreže simbolov, teh pa Kosovel niuporabljal. Integrali so primer montaže disparatnih podob. Pobudo <strong>za</strong> tak načinpesnjenja je Kosovel lahko dobil iz različnih virov, saj je značilen <strong>za</strong> vsamodernistična gibanja. Kosovel je mestoma uporabljal tudi nominalni stil, impersonalneso samo nekatere pesmi iz Integralov.4. Motivna območja, iz katerih je Kosovel največ <strong>za</strong>jemal, so: rože, živali,voda, sonce, mesec, noč, zvezde, nebo, srce, duša, religiozne podobe, glasba,tehnika. Ker se isti motivi pojavljajo v različnih smereh in gibanjih, presoje otem, v katero smer ali gibanje spada Kosovelova poezija, ne moremo opreti samona katalog podob. Če upoštevamo tematsko funkcijo posameznih podob, lahkougotovimo predvsem sorodnost z romantično in ekspresionistično poezijo.34
Ideja integralovv Kosovelovi poezijiBożena TokarzŠlezijska univer<strong>za</strong>, KatowiceHitro pridobljene umetniške izkušnje so <strong>za</strong>čele pri Kosovelu zbujati določenodistanco in ne<strong>za</strong>upanje. Skrbelo ga je, da se mu utegne v razmerjumed poezijo, človekom in resničnostjo <strong>za</strong>megliti ideja celote. Podobnokot veliko drugih avantgardistov je verjel v organskost sveta in človeka,Zemlje in Vesolja. Njegova koncepcija je bila usmerjena izrazito antropocentrično,<strong>za</strong>to je trdil, da nova resničnost potrebuje novega človeka, ki bibil človeški, torej logičen, občutljiv, predvsem pa etičen. Zapletenost zenitističnepesmi ga je z uporabo postopka montaže spominjala na gibanicoali jabolčni <strong>za</strong>vitek. 1 Čeprav je v njej videl številne možnosti, je sam iskaldrugačen pesniški izraz, da bi se lahko približal celostnemu človeku. Koje <strong>za</strong>pisal: »Jaz nisem estetični lik,« se je distanciral od elitne umetnostiin njene esteti<strong>za</strong>cije. Izraz teh iskanj so estetsko-nazorska vprašanja, pove<strong>za</strong>nas konsi in integrali. Zaradi Kosovelovega intenzivnega umetniškegadoživljanja nove umetnosti, slovenskega pesniškega izročila (predvsemŽupančiča), spreminjajoče se tehnične civili<strong>za</strong>cije, ki je ustvarjala novevedenjske vzorce in občutja, pa tudi <strong>za</strong>radi njegove mladostniške odzivnosti,mu je zmanjkalo časa <strong>za</strong> urejanje in preciziranje lastne umetniškevizije, ki se mu je izoblikovala pred smrtjo, vendar na ravni ideje; poetikaje še ostajala v sferi kristali<strong>za</strong>cije. Ni se hotel ukvarjati z besedami, kar nepomeni, da ni videl potrebe po prilagajanju umetniške ustvarjalnosti novi<strong>za</strong>znavi, izoblikovani pod vplivom ikonosfere. V njegovi poeziji, kratkiprozi in dnevnikih je veliko dokazov <strong>za</strong> to. Zaradi pesnikove osebne usodeimamo opraviti z <strong>za</strong>pisom genialne intuicije, s potencialnostjo, ne paz dokončanim delom. Prav <strong>za</strong>radi potencialnosti, poetike nasprotij in načinapesniškega videnja je ta avantgardni pesnik postal najbolj priljubljen včasu postmodernizma, ki je sicer daleč od vsakršnega urejanja resničnostiin vere v celostne vizije. Kosovel si je vendarle pri<strong>za</strong>deval, da bi, takokot drugi avantgardisti, <strong>za</strong>jel celoto, morebiti niti ne sveta, ampak človeka,čeprav je dvomil o konvencionalni pove<strong>za</strong>nosti teme s sredstvi, ki jo konstruirajo;predstavljal je besedila, ki so bila blizu načelu „odprtega dela”z zrahljano kompozicijo; <strong>za</strong>vračal je mimetizem na račun drugih metodizražanja resničnosti, npr. beleženja, navdihovale so ga druge umetnostiin sredstva sporazumevanja – slikarstvo, časopis, fotografija; razglašal jePrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka35
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAkrizo umetnosti, v okviru teorij literarnih zvrsti pa je povzdigoval zvrstnekonvencije. Za njegovo literarno in estetsko <strong>za</strong>vest je bila značilna izrednaintuicija, ki je mdr. ka<strong>za</strong>la na omejenost jezikovnega gradiva. Zato je izkoriščalvizualne možnosti besede: grafijo in tipografijo. 2Kosovelov pesniški izraz in umetnostni nazor naj bi se brusila v obračunus konstruktivizmom in z vstopanjem v območje konstruktivnostioz. intelektualno-estetskega prostora med konsi in integrali. Vsi razlagalciKosovelove ustvarjalnosti soglasno poudarjajo, da so konsi izraz konstruktivističneestetike, integrali pa revolucionarnega humanizma v težnji k celostnemučloveku. Po mojem mnenju so integrali pesniško še neobdelanaideja človeka in ideja poezije. Konse je namreč mogoče brati kot pesniškokonstrukcijo, integrale pa kot pesniški razkroj. Mednje lahko uvrstimo vsetiste pesmi, ki obravnavajo človeške vrednote in vrednote pesnika kot človeka.V Kosovelovi predstavi naj bi bili predvsem posledica vseh pesniškihkonsekvenc, izhajajočih iz obdajajoče ga resničnosti. Na tako <strong>za</strong>misel kažesam naslov neizdane zbirke.Integral, ki v slovenščini nastopa kot izraz <strong>za</strong> celoto, je matematično-fizikalnipojem, ki se je Kosovelu izka<strong>za</strong>l <strong>za</strong> uporabnega v obdobju njegovihkonstruktivističnih izkušenj, ko je v pesemski zgradbi izkoriščal informacijskekode, med njimi tudi kemijske in matematične, da bi prika<strong>za</strong>l mnoštvoinformacij pri spoznavanju in razumevanju resničnosti. Pesniška izpovednaj bi bila nekakšna njihova rezultanta, ki obenem ustvarja komunikacijskimo<strong>za</strong>ik. Izhodiščno načelo je bilo, v novi neomejeni strukturi umetnostnegabesedila prodreti do bistva resničnosti z vanjo vpisanim človekom.Ker je Kosovel videl poezijo v tesni pove<strong>za</strong>nosti z resničnostjo, lahko domnevamo,da je intuitivno iskal dostop k njenemu skritemu mehanizmu insmislu, <strong>za</strong> to pa so potrebni čuti in razum. Čuti so mu narekovali vključitevvizualnega sporazumevanja v besedilo in iskanje pesniškega ekvivalenta,skladnega z ikonosfero in načini <strong>za</strong>znavanja kot njenim rezultatom. Razumje narekoval iskanje ključa <strong>za</strong> kar najbolj objektivno urejanje izkustva; verjetnoje prav on usmeril pesnikovo pozornost k matematiki.Podobna pri<strong>za</strong>devanja je avtor konsov lahko opazil pri likovnikih (slikarjiin arhitekti), ki <strong>za</strong> organi<strong>za</strong>cijo prostora uporabljajo matematične izračune.Številčne <strong>za</strong>konitosti so radi uporabljali slikarji konstruktivisti. Vendar pa jebilo to načelo pogosto vzrok <strong>za</strong> nesoglasja med slikarji in pesniki, ker besedni mogoče zgolj šteti, saj so nosilec pomenov in obenem stvar. Vsi pesnikiniso bili in še vedno niso pripravljeni pristajati na materialno konkretnostbesede. Zato med drugimi Julian Przyboś ni bil <strong>za</strong>dovoljen z grafično opremosvoje pesniške zbirke Sponad (Iznad), ki je bila delo Strzemińskega (vprvi izdaji je bil pravopisno drugačen <strong>za</strong>pis naslova: Z ponad (Iz nad). Vtaki obliki ga ni več ponatiskoval, ker je sodil, da je bila grafična oprema<strong>za</strong> pesmi škodljiva, čeprav so bili odnosi med Władysławom Strzemińskimin Julianom Przybośem obojestransko ustvarjalni. 3 Przyboś je podobno kotPeiper menil, da pozna poezija drugačne načine <strong>za</strong> oblikovanje celote kotslikarstvo. Likovni kod sta videla kot sestavino besedila, ki pa ne more bitipodrejena izključno vizualni urejenosti, zlasti ne številčnim <strong>za</strong>konitostim.Številčna mera je bila tudi razlog, da je Peiper <strong>za</strong>vrnil predlog Strzemińskega36
Bożena Tokarz: Ideja integralov v Kosovelovi poeziji(konstruktivističnega slikarja), naj bi uporabljal stalne besedne sklope, razvrščenev različne sestave na podlagi številčnih <strong>za</strong>konitosti, 4 kar je v svojihunističnih kompozicijah delal Strzemiński.Kosovel je, podobno kot poljska pesnika, čeprav iz drugih vzrokov, nasprotovalmatematični avtomati<strong>za</strong>ciji besede. Matematika pa mu je hkrativendarle bila vzorec <strong>za</strong> objektivi<strong>za</strong>cijske možnosti človekovega razuma.Zato je navezoval nanj v iskanju bistva človeštva. Pri<strong>za</strong>deval si je spoznatielementarnega človeka tako, kot se v matematičnem procesu integriranjas pomočjo izvedene funkcije išče prvotna funkcija. Poznal je Malewiczevsuprematizem in rusko različico konstruktivizma, iz Zenita in od Černigojaje izvedel o teoriji E1 Lisickega. Zanesljivo mu nista bila neznana – kot trdiJanez Vrečko 5 – Erenburgov konstruktivizem in prostorski konstruktivizemTatlina. Vendar v njih ni našel načela, ki bi združevalo <strong>za</strong>znavo, čustvo inrazum, kar bi ustre<strong>za</strong>lo Peiperjevi <strong>za</strong>snovi metafore in stavka. Hkrati je<strong>za</strong>vračal preproste transpozicije enega področja umetnosti na drugo, čepravjih je sam uporabljal kot posebne informacijske kode. Brez dvoma je <strong>za</strong>konstruktivisti povzel idejo o estetski preobrazbi poezije, da bi se približalaresničnosti. Pomembna razvojna stopnja v kristali<strong>za</strong>ciji tega stališča je bilruski konstruktivizem (ne neposredno, ampak morebiti prek Grahorja inZenita), na katerega se je skliceval z določenimi <strong>za</strong>držki. V pismu FaniciObidovi z dne 27. 7. 1925 je <strong>za</strong>pisal: »[…] sem se odločil, da stopim nalevo. Iz absolutne negacije, nihilizma […]. […] škoda, da ne morem priznati„absolutno nobene diktature”. Klub temu, da sem vedno simpatiziralz levo, nisem mogel razumeti njihove ozkosrčnosti. […] stojim na njihovistrani, čeprav teoretično še daleč ne soglašam.« 6 Pritegnila ga je njihovaidejna angažiranost in približevanje resničnosti, a se je bal skrajnosti.Manjkala mu je celota (vsaka diktatura je redukcija), pa tudi koherentnaumetniška vizija z vidika življenjski potreb in potreb poezije. Integrali najbi bili pot k njej, drugačna kot pri vseh različicah konstruktivizma, saj najbi temeljila na antinomiji življenja in umetnosti, pripadnosti in avtonomiji.Integrali naj bi bili rezultat logično razumskega dela v procesu konceptuali<strong>za</strong>cijestvari, dogodkov in njihovih <strong>za</strong>znav. Na to kaže že sam naslov, kise sklicuje na urejevalne lastnosti razuma.Integral je rezultat procesa, integriranja, ki temelji na iskanju prvotnefunkcije s pomočjo izvedene funkcije. Funkcija omogoča najti svojo izvedenko,temeljno informacijo, ki vsebuje kar najmanj neznank. Tako izvedenafunkcija opredeljuje nekatere njene konkretne lastnosti, npr.: padajoča alirastoča vrednost, maksimalna ali minimalna točka. Izvedenka je tudi funkcija,vendar nekako »nižje« stopnje. Torej nosi v sebi (skrite) informacije oprvotni funkciji. Torej je mogoče na podlagi izvedene rekonstruirati izvirnofunkcijo. Poleg tega lahko označeni integral predstavlja določene abstraktnematematično-fizične velikosti. Da bi razumeli, kaj je integral, se je treba<strong>za</strong>vedati, kaj so funkcija in njene izvedenke oziroma preprostejše oblike <strong>za</strong>pletenefunkcije (celote ali vzorca celote), ki so hkrati samostojne oblike. Zintegriranjem preučujemo nekaj, kar je obenem samostojni pojav (posebnavrednost), hkrati pa je izvedenka drugega pojava, pomembnejšega oziromatemeljnega, torej nosi v sebi informacijo o nečem bolj prvotnem. 737
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAKljub <strong>za</strong>vračanju avtomati<strong>za</strong>cije, ki je prinašala s seboj nenehno razvijajočose tehniko, temelječo na znanstvenem dognanju, je Kosovel videlveliko vrednost znanosti v spoznavanju resničnosti. Ni se izrekal o znanosti,temveč so njegove pesniške <strong>za</strong>misli vsebovale sledove njenega navdiha.Obenem pa je umetnosti priznaval spoznavne vrednosti, te pa naj biseveda služile človeku. Integrali naj bi postali temelj njegovega pesniškegaprograma, ki se je <strong>za</strong>čel oblikovati z izpričevanjem resničnosti (beleženjenasprotij) in se končal z izvirno pesniško koncepcijo. Nemara prav <strong>za</strong>to nipoimenoval z integrali tistih pesmi, ki naj bi prišle v zbirko, ampak se jeomejil le na eno pesem in naslov zbirke. Posamezna besedila so imela različnenaslove, ker so bila udeležena v procesu integriranja, torej prodiranjas pomočjo funkcije tako do bistva stvari v obliki izvirnika – kompleksnegapojava, kot tudi do drugih prvotnih informacij, skritih v izvedenkah.Simbolični jezik poezije ustvarja take možnosti <strong>za</strong>radi hkratne denotacijein konotacije. Povezovanje pesmi, imenovanih integrali, z znanstvenimmišljenjem poudarja delež razuma v umetniškem urejanju sveta. To ni tolikopritrjevanje razumu, kot dopuščanje, da sprejema pesniške odločitve.Tako <strong>za</strong>misel kaže projekt zbirke Integrali, sama njegova ideja, kajti sestavane zna rekonstruirati nihče. Integral namreč pona<strong>za</strong>rja logično nepretrganostporajanja s posredovanjem oblik in pojavov; <strong>za</strong> samostojne oblikese zmeraj iščejo prvotne in … bolj <strong>za</strong>pletene se zmeraj odkrivajo v izvedenihfunkcijah. Medtem pa bi različica označenega integrala, prenesenav poezijo, omogočila prika<strong>za</strong>ti določene abstraktne vrednosti, <strong>za</strong>devajočečlovekov aksiološki sistem: estetski, etični, filozofski, družbeni, političniitd. Tako postaja pesniška intervencija v resničnost poseganje v samo resničnost.Verbalizirano načelo razuma predstavlja njen opis; paralizirana vopisu ne more delovati. Zaradi tega je težko reči, kako bi se naprej razvijalaKosovelova poezija. Gotovo pa bi ka<strong>za</strong>la težnje k <strong>za</strong>obseganju celote vustrezni formuli – v pesniški konstrukciji. Izkoriščanje procesa integriranjane bi smelo izravnavati nasprotij, ki jih pesnik opaža, vendar pa je težkopredvideti, kako bi poudarjeno logiko mišljenja povezoval z objektivno danimfenomenom nasprotij, servilnost poezije z njeno specifiko, izvirajočoiz ustvarjanja sveta, alternativnega v odnosu do resničnosti. Ko Kosovelgovori o takem svetu, pogosto navaja figuro o titanski poeziji. Pesnik sekot subjekt bori <strong>za</strong> človeštvo, <strong>za</strong> nov svet, posveča mu svojo energijo, poživljajočomoč (npr. Jesensko tiho, Rdeča raketa, Smrt itd.). Glede na to,da v slovenski poeziji ni titanske ali mesianistične tradicije, ampak samoekspresionistični izrazi pri<strong>za</strong>detosti in upora, lahko domnevamo, da se je vKosovelovi poeziji obnavljala ideja pesnikovega uporniškega sveta. On jenamreč kot subjekt nosilec procesa integriranja. On odstira vse <strong>za</strong>store, kiskrivajo resnično človekovo bistvo. V njegovih ekspresionističnih pesmihpritegujejo pozornost take ključne besede, kot so: pajčolan, <strong>za</strong>stor, pajčevina,krinka, <strong>za</strong>vesa. Na semantični ravni pesniškemu mehanizmu integriranjaustre<strong>za</strong> trganje <strong>za</strong>ves, izrez kadrov, odsevi in beleženje.Kosovelove konse je mogoče obravnavati kot nedokončno identificiraneposkuse reševanja integralov. V enih in drugih si je pesnik pri<strong>za</strong>deval <strong>za</strong>isto stvar – prika<strong>za</strong>ti raznorodnost sveta v individualnem pesniškem doži-38
Bożena Tokarz: Ideja integralov v Kosovelovi poezijivetju. Konsi, pa tudi lepljenke, ki so nastale pod vplivom futurističnih pesniškihizkušenj, označujejo razvojno stopnjo oblikovanja pesniške koncepcijejezikovnega izra<strong>za</strong>. Tudi integrali niso končni dosežek, ampak izrazumetniške <strong>za</strong>misli, ki je Kosovel ni utegnil uresničiti. Zamisel o integralihga močneje veže na konstruktivizem kot konsi, pri katerih je uporabljenatehnika konstruktivizma, kajti v njih naj bi se dovršila ustvarjalna sinte<strong>za</strong>čutnosti (videnje), čustvenosti in razuma. Vprašljivo je tisto, kar naj bi bilipo avtorjevi <strong>za</strong>misli. Pri tem ne smemo po<strong>za</strong>biti, da – kot sicer kaže poetikakonsov – naj bi prav tako bili le razvojna stopnja pri prodiranju v esencialnostsveta, človeka in naverjetneje tudi poezije. Bili so prav tako integrali,torej analitični postopek, ki šele omogoča presojo o nečem. Poezija, ki jenastajala v času, ko so nastajali integrali, pa ne kaže na izrazitejše prevrednotenjev okviru pesniške ekspresije, ampak na idejo gradnje boljšega svetas pomočjo poezije. Pri tem procesu prihaja do trenja med destrukcijo inkonstrukcijo. Lahko bi rekli, da destrukcija služi konstrukciji tako v smisluideje in vrednosti kot v strukturi pesniške izpovedi.Zlasti v konsih destrukcija poteka v imenu konstrukcije, ki naj bi sezgodila v duhu naslovnika, in ima svoje besedilne signale predvsem v kompoziciji(ki daje vtis naključnosti, čeprav v resnici ni) in v raznorodnostiizkoriščanja jezikov.Anton Ocvirk, glavni urednik <strong>za</strong>puščine Srečka Kosovela, je konse dvakratuvrstil med besedila, imenovana Integrali: leta 1967, ko je izdal zbirkoIntegrali, in 1974 – ko je v drugem zvezku Zbranih del ločil te pesmipod skupnim naslovom. Že izdaja Integralov je zbudila veliko dvomov invprašanj, pove<strong>za</strong>nih z ustvarjalnim razvojem tega avantgardnega pesnika. 8Razprave Jane<strong>za</strong> Vrečka, predvsem pa njegova knjiga Srečko Kosovel,slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem (1986), na podlagi preučevanjatemeljnega gradiva in metapesniških izjav pojasnjujejo fenomenKosovelove poezije, pri čemer je pomembna tudi oznaka strukture in funkcijekonsov.Ne glede na spore, ki jih med slovenskimi literarnimi zgodovinarji sprožata poezija, je zbirka Integrali v izdaji Antona Ocvirka <strong>za</strong>služna, da jebil Kosovel opažen kot izjemen pojav v slovenski poeziji, in to predvsem<strong>za</strong>radi konstruktivističnih pesmi. Vendar ta konstruktivizem ni tako konstruktivističen,kot so ga predstavljali ruski pesniki, npr. Ilja Selvinski,ali na Poljskem Tadeusz Peiper, katerega poezija je veljala <strong>za</strong> najbližjokonstruktivizmu. Kosovel je v pismih in manifestih večkrat izražal vero vnovega človeka, toda opažal je tudi nevarnosti, ki jih prinaša civili<strong>za</strong>cija.Novi človek je bil <strong>za</strong>nj utelešenje ideje absolutnega človečanstva oziromakompleksnosti njegovega obstoja. 9 Torej ga ni reduciral na družbeno funkcijo,pove<strong>za</strong>no s tehniko, ampak ga je videl v širšem kontekstu.Konstruktivizem je bil <strong>za</strong> pesnika ena od faz v iskanju absolutnega človeštvav poeziji, izraženega v kompleksnosti in integralnosti pesmi.Kompleksnost v konsih je predstavljena v tematski in slogovni raznorodnosti,ki ustvarja vtis mnoštva glasov sveta. Vendar ne ustvarjajo kaosa,kajti v besedilu ima bralec opraviti z njihovim izborom, ta pa je izveden znamenom poudariti obstoječa nasprotja, da bi se po razrešitvi le-teh odprla39
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAmožnost oblikovanja integralne podobe. Ko razdira tradicionalne mehanizmesklenjenosti lirskega besedila, na videz ne ponuja novih, ampak nalagabralcu dolžnost povezovanja vzporednih informacij in dokončno konceptuali<strong>za</strong>cijostanja ali pojava. Načine konceptuali<strong>za</strong>cije največkrat kaže različnopoudarjen semantični vozel besedila (grafično in verbalno ali samoverbalno). Aktiviranje bralca k dejavni udeležbi pri ustvarjanju in percepcijibesedila je bilo pove<strong>za</strong>no s funkcijo, kakršno je slovenski ustvarjalecpripisoval poeziji. Pesem naj ne bi le zbujala estetska doživetja, temveč najbi spodbujala k mišljenju in delovanju, estetski problemi pa naj bi se reševalipri izpolnjevanju pragmatične funkcije. Kosovel je gojil ne<strong>za</strong>upanje vodnosu do opazovane resničnosti.Za konse ni značilna integralnost pesmi. Na primarni ravni izpovedi sonekoherentni, ker se tudi subjekt zdi enako dezorientiran kot zbrana pričevanjaresničnosti, celo takrat, ko izdaja svojo navzočnost v besedilu.Vendar obstaja nekakšna nit, ki povezuje navidezno neodvisne in medsebojnonepove<strong>za</strong>ne informacije, izjave, krike. Povezovalno funkcijo najpogostejeizpolnjuje negacija, izvirajoča iz sestave različnih fragmentov, kigovorijo o kakšnih dejstvih, dogodkih, odzivih ali dejanjih, ki se nahajajov eni jezikovni prostranosti in ustvarjajo notranja razmerja, obenem pa kažejona zunajbesedilno resničnost. Te informacije, iztrgane iz svojega konteksta,kažejo razpoke, pomanjkljivosti v realnem svetu in obenem zbujajoupor in <strong>za</strong>nikanje.Konsi pritegujejo pozornost <strong>za</strong>radi navidezno nedokončane oblike inumetniške diferenciacije posameznih besedil ter <strong>za</strong>radi svoje notranjeraznorodnosti. V njih prevladuje ideja odprtosti, kar je vidno že na ravnizgradbe. Temeljno načelo zgradbe konsov je mo<strong>za</strong>ik, kar omogoča vključevatirazlične informacije in informacijske kode v strukturo pesmi: odstavka prek matematičnih, logičnih in kemijskih znakov do etiket, gesel,citatov iz časopisov in brošur, pa tudi stili<strong>za</strong>cij ljudske pesmi in različnihoblik navajanja literarnih odnosnic. Mo<strong>za</strong>ik tvorijo sestavine, uporabljeneže v drugem kontekstu, iz katerih nikoli ne bo nastala dokončna celota, ampakdinamična celota, ki je podvržena spremembam. Urejevalno funkcijov njej ima semantika, smisel dela pa je spoznaven skozi semantični vozelbesedila ali skupni asociativni krog. Zaradi raznorodnosti gradiva pesmi indvoumnega stališča subjekta večina konsov nima značaja monocentričneizpovedi, tipične <strong>za</strong> liriko. Subjekt ne ureja sveta niti si ne pri<strong>za</strong>deva venomerna novo ubesedovati lastno čustveno stanje. Kosovelovo izogibanjeredukcionizmu subjekta daje bralcu večjo možnost <strong>za</strong> interpretacijo sveta.Ko je Kosovel <strong>za</strong>vrnil prvenstvenost tehnike in sprejemal njeno uporabnost,je izkoriščal <strong>za</strong>znavne mehanizme, ki jih je v človeku izoblikovala tehničnacivili<strong>za</strong>cija. Poskusi, vsebovani v konsih, jasno kažejo na uporabo <strong>za</strong>znavnetehnike, izoblikovane v njegovi dobi. Navidezna destrukcija v konsihje rezultat mo<strong>za</strong>ične konstrukcije z uporabo kontrasta in paralelizma.Kljub uporabljenim pesniškim tehnikam konstruktivizma, futurizma inekspresionizma se konsi od drugih avantgardnih pesniških oblik ločujejopo zgradbi osnutkov. Ko se je Kosovel v pesmi odpovedal homogenosti(stališč in gradiva) na račun heterogenosti, je <strong>za</strong>nikal tako imenovano čis-40
tost besedne umetnosti. Ko je opazil nevarnosti civili<strong>za</strong>cije dvajsetega stoletja,je obenem ponotranjil v poeziji najbolj značilne poteze dobe.Integrali naj bi torej v poeziji pozunanjili popolnega človeka z njegovoraznorodno občutljivostjo, etiko, družbenimi in nacionalnimi zve<strong>za</strong>mi,torej človeka, ki je središčna figura na Zemlji (sonce-človek) in elementVesolja, kar se je deloma ve<strong>za</strong>lo z utopično teorijo zgodovinske avantgarde.Usmerjeni so bili k ideji absolutnega človečanstva, njihov naslovnikpa naj bi bil konstruktivni človek, razumljen brez redukcionističnih omejitev.Take so glede na temo nekatere pesmi, objavljene v Ocvirkovi izdajiIntegralov, npr.: Sodobna mrtvila, Svetilka ob cesti, Kalejdoskop, Majhenplašč in druge. Za cikel Integrali je torej značilna vsebinska sklenjenost,medtem ko se v formalnem pogledu ne razlikujejo od drugih oblik avantgardnegasvobodnega ver<strong>za</strong>. V večini primerov je <strong>za</strong>nje značilna kitičnazgradba, dosledna odsotnost rim in ritmična regularnost ter monocentričnostizjave, ki poudarja urejevalno funkcijo lirskega subjekta. V nasprotjuod konsov je v njih omejen delež zunajpesniških kodov. Integrali tvorijodaljše celote in imajo <strong>za</strong>radi uporabe <strong>za</strong>prte strukture, temelječe na različnihvrstah ponovitev (med drugim tudi na antimetaboli) izrazito formuliranoidejo, npr.:Bodi svetilka, če ni timogoče biti človek;ker težko je biti človek.Človek ima samo dve roki,pomagati pa bi moral tisočerim.Bodi <strong>za</strong>to obcestna svetilka,ki sveti tisoč veselim v obraz,ki sveti samotnemu, blodečemu.Bodi svetilka z eno lučjo,človek v magičnem kvadratu,z zeleno roko znamenja dajoč.Bodi svetilka, svetilka,svetilka. 10Bożena Tokarz: Ideja integralov v Kosovelovi poezijiPri oznaki integralov je treba jasno poudariti, da je s tem imenom mogočeoznačiti vse pesmi razen konsov, ki so bile napisane v obdobju od pomladido jeseni leta 1925 in v katerih prevladuje ideja celostnega človeka.Do nepreciznosti prihaja, ker slovenski literarni zgodovinarji niso mogli določitiustreznega korpusa besedil, kar ne spreminja ocene te ustvarjalnosti.Iz pisem in <strong>za</strong>piskov v Dnevnikih je znano, da je Kosovel v istem času pisalkonse in integrale, v pismu Obidovi pa beremo o načrtovani pesniški zbirkiz naslovom Integrali, ki naj bi imela uvod. Morebiti bi lahko bilo tako <strong>za</strong>poredje:kons (kot uvod) in pesem – kar bi se ujemalo z miselno intencointegrala. Integral je operacija, ki temelji na določenem miselnem procesu,ki omogoča dostop do informacije, torej izhodiščne točke. Pomeni procespreučevanje samostojnega pojava, hkrati pa izvedenega iz drugega pojava.Zato bi konsi lahko bili v vlogi parcialnih funkcij, pove<strong>za</strong>nih z načelomnastopanja v sklopu s pesmijo, v kateri je uporabljen učinek te operacije. Vtakem primeru bi Kosovel lahko bral svoje pesmi na literarnem večeru (o41
KOSOVELOVA POETIKApripravah nanj je pisal Obidovi) razen tistih konsov, ki so <strong>za</strong> to neprimerni(glede na grafično-vizualni element). Na verjetnost takih domnev kaže primerjavanjegove poezije z <strong>za</strong>pisi v Dnevnikih. Zelo pogosto so to shemepesmi ali osnutki člankov in predavanj, čeprav – kot je mogoče domnevati– so bili to <strong>za</strong>pisi spoznanj, refleksij in dejstev, šele pozneje pa gradivo <strong>za</strong>pesmi. Vtis, da gre pri konsih <strong>za</strong> osnutke, v precejšnji meri izvira iz njegoveganačina <strong>za</strong>pisovanja. Ni znano, ali naj bi bili Integrali ciljna točka vnjegovi pesniški koncepciji. Najbrž ne, saj je v pismih (mdr. Obidovi) pisal,da se mora še veliko naučiti, intenzivno delati, potovati v tujino, da bi spoznalnajnovejše ustvarjalne dosežke: nazore in umetniške rešitve.Če velja, da je bil Kosovelov končni cilj pesniško oblikovanje popolnegačloveka in njegove vizije, so sledovi tega navzoči tudi v konsih, kiso nesporno veljali <strong>za</strong> konstruktivistične pesmi. Konsi vsebujejo elementekonstruktivistične poetike, a njihova struktura se z namernim razbijanjempodobe nagiblje k odprtosti; ni <strong>za</strong>prta konstruktivistična celota.Konsi temeljijo na prevladi načela reprezentativnosti oziroma na sekundarnemrojevanju resničnosti z njenimi replikami v obliki fragmentov ali pričevanj,vključenih v pesem (npr. geslo, naslov, etiketa, jezikovnemu kodu tujkod ipd.). Integrali ustvarjajo predstave z izrazito opredeljenim glediščem inperspektivo opazovalca. Njihovo sporočilo je <strong>za</strong> bralca čitljivo, besedilo pane <strong>za</strong>hteva kreativnega sodelovanja bralca. Kljub temu, da se sklicujeta naliterarnozvrstno nejasno opredeljene predmete, pa sta oba parazvrstna pojmaznačilna <strong>za</strong> Kosovelovo pesniško in filozofsko <strong>za</strong>vest. Njena konstitutivnalastnost je nasprotje, ki je značilna tako <strong>za</strong> kaos kot tudi <strong>za</strong> fenomen celostnegaobstoja, ki presega predstavne možnosti poezije. Reprodukcija resničnostije zmeraj obsojena na negotovost, <strong>za</strong>to je avtor konsov izbral fragment, prepričano njegovi pripadnosti kakšni celoti. Tako kot nasprotje lahko obstajav celoti, tako je konstrukcija možna v destrukciji in obratno, ker subjektivnosoobstaja z objektivnim, mirkozmos z makrokozmosom. Razmerja mednjimi se oblikujejo na podlagi neprestano vzpostavljajočih se razmerij medsubjektom in objektom in drugimi subjekti. Njihov porok so bili <strong>za</strong> Kosovelazmeraj čustvo, duh in razum, navzoči v procesu sporazumevanja, ki je dosegljivo<strong>za</strong>radi sočutenja in človekovih etičnih potreb.Iz poljščine prevedel Niko Jež.OPOMBE1Prim. Srečko Kosovel: Zbrano delo. Tretja knjiga (Prvi del). Ur. Anton Ocvirk.Ljubljana : DZS, 1977, s. 688.2Prim. Grzegorz Gazda: Słownik europejskich kierunków i grup literackich XXwieku. Wars<strong>za</strong>wa: PWN, 2000, s. 34–44.3Prim. Seweryna Wysłouch: Literatura a sztuki wizualne. Wars<strong>za</strong>wa: PWN 194,s. 36–61.4Tadeusz Peiper: Rytm nowoczesny. V: N. d.: Tędy. Nowe usta.Predgovor,komentar, biogr. podatki Stanisław Jaworski. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie,1972, s. 90.42
Bożena Tokarz: Ideja integralov v Kosovelovi poeziji5Prim. Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem.Maribor: Obzorja, 1986, s. 147.6Srečko Kosovel: Zbrano delo. Tretja knjiga (Prvi del)… , s. 400.7Prim. Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna. T. II. Wars<strong>za</strong>wa: PWN 1963, s. 272–275.8Prim. Matijaž Kmecel: »Torej še enkrat o Srečku Kosovelu«. Jezik in slovstvo1971/72, št. 4; Franc Zdravec: Srečko Kosovel. Koper - Trst: Zalożba Lipain Založništvo tržaškega tiska 1986; Boris Paternu: »Slovenski modernizem«.Sodobnost 1985, št. 11; Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinskaavantgarda in zenitizem…9Prim. Janez Vrečko: »Konstruktivizem, futurizem in branje Kosovelovih konsov.«[1]. Delo 1988, št. 121, [dodatek:] Književni listi, s. 4. Te razlike ni opazilAnton Ocvirk, ko je predstavljal konse in integrale kot celoto – prim. Anton Ocvirk:»Srečko Kosovel in konstruktivizem«. V: Srečko Kosovel: Integrali’ 26. Ur. AntonOcvirk. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba, 1967, s. 5–112 in Srečko Kosovel: Zbranodelo. Tretja knjiga (Drugi del).10N. d.: »Svetilka ob cesti«. V: N. d.: Zbrano delo. Druga knjiga. Ur. in opombenapisal Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS, s. 149.• POVZETEKUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / pesniške oblike / konsi /integraliKosovel je, podobno kot veliko ustvarjalcev, spadajočih v avantgardo, verjel vorgansko zvezo sveta in človeka, Zemlje in Vesolja. Poezija je bila <strong>za</strong>nj izrazobčutljivosti, razuma, čustev in človekovega vživljanja. Pomenila mu je virestetskih doživetij in sredstvo spoznavanja. V želji, da bi se približal celostnemučloveku, je videl potrebo po umetniški analizi in sintezi pojavov, čemurmdr. ustre<strong>za</strong>jo konsi in integrali; te literarne parazvrstne oblike vsebujejo njegovaestetsko-nazorska iskanja.Integral je v slovenskem jeziku oznaka <strong>za</strong> matematično-fizikalni pojem,katerega analitično-sintetično uporabnost je Kosovel odkril v obdobju svojihkonstruktivističnih iskanj. Integral je namreč izid procesa integriranja, ki temeljina iskanju prvotne funkcije s pomočjo izpeljane. Z izpeljavo funkcijaomogoča odkriti prvotno ali prvotnejšo informacijo s kar najmanjšim številomneznank. S procesom integriranja raziskujemo nekaj, kar je hkrati samostojenpojav in izpeljava drugega, pomembnejšega oz. temeljnega, vsebuje torej informacijoo nečem, kar je prvotnejše.Na tak način je vzpostavljena pove<strong>za</strong>nost in kontinuiteta pojavov, ki neposrednoni opazna. Konsi vsebujejo na videz neodvisne elemente (so izpeljave);z njimi skuša pesnik mdr. v integralih priti do celostnega človeka, do bistvačlovečanstva, torej do prvinskega človeka.43
SREČKO KOSOVELIN EVROPSKA AVANTGARDAJanez VrečkoFilozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana1.Srečko Kosovel se je rodil 18. marca 1904 v Sežani blizu Trsta, takrat še v avstroogrskimonarhiji. Odraščal je v narodno <strong>za</strong>vedni učiteljski družini. 1916 jeodšel na realko v Ljubljano, ker so ga starši želeli rešiti pred strahotami prvesvetovne vojne. Po koncu te vojne je ena tretjina Slovencev spod habsburškedinastije prešla pod savojsko kraljevino, kar je <strong>za</strong>nje pomenilo katastrofalenzgodovinski prelom. Že konec leta 1918 so fašisti vdrli v prostore slovenskeškofije v Trstu in škofa kasneje prisilili, da se je odpovedal škofiji. Sredi leta1920 so fašisti s tihim soglasjem oblasti požgali Narodni dom, najvidnejše innajmočnejše središče slovenske navzočnosti v Trstu. Ta požig je bil ognjenikrst prihajajočega fašizma in uvod v divjo raznarodovalno politiko, ki se ješe posebej stopnjevala od oktobra 1922, ko so fašisti prevzeli oblast v Italiji.Razpuščali so vse, kar je bilo slovenskega, od političnih strank do kulturnihdruštev, prepovedali slovenski jezik v javni rabi, poitalijančevali slovenskepriimke in <strong>za</strong>tirali periodični tisk. Šolska reforma je leta 1923 predpisala kotučni jezik v šolah samo italijanščino. Ožjo domovino Primorsko so morali<strong>za</strong>pustiti številni pesniki, pisatelji in publicisti.Usoda Primorske po prvi vojni je bila <strong>za</strong> Kosovela nadvse travmatična.Solidarnost z rojaki onstran meje, ki so bili pod oblastjo »vojaške fašističneokupacije«, je Kosovel obsojal v svojih pesmih in pismih. S strahom jeopazoval, kako se nacionalizem in militarizem krepita in kako Trst iz odprtegavečjezičnega mesta postaja prostor nestrpnosti in surovih obračunavanjz nasprotniki režima, med katerimi je bilo kar nekaj Slovencev, Kosovelovihprijateljev. Podobno kritičen je bil Kosovel tudi do države južnih Slovanov,kraljevine SHS, saj je kmalu spoznal, kako postaja velikosrbski nacionalizem<strong>za</strong> Slovence ogrožajoč. V svoji centralistični <strong>za</strong>gnanosti so srbski politikiv sleherni kulturni in družbeni dejavnosti odkrivali separatistične težnje.Po bengalskem piscu Tagoreju je Kosovel povzel ločevanje narodnosti, kimu je pomenila nekaj duhovnega v primerjavi z nacionalizmom, ki ga je imel<strong>za</strong> materialno silo. Fašizem v Italiji in velikosrbski nacionalizem v kraljeviniSHS je Kosovel <strong>za</strong>vrnil kot »militarizirani nacionalizem«. Agresivnostvelikosrbske politike je pesnik kmalu občutil na lastni koži, saj mu ni bilaPrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka45
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAdodeljena štipendija, ki bi jo nujno potreboval po očetovi prisilni upokojitvi– službo je izgubil kot narodno <strong>za</strong>veden Slovenec. (Pirjevec, 12). Očetovaželja je bila, da bi se izšolal <strong>za</strong> gozdarskega inženirja, ker bi na ta način lahkostrokovno sodeloval pri pogozdovanju Krasa, a se to ni zgodilo, saj je sin1922 <strong>za</strong>čel s študijem slavistike in romanistike na ljubljanski univerzi.2.Kosovel se je Slovencem razkrival sila počasi. Leto po smrti, 1927., so prijateljiizdali izbor Pesmi, 1930. so izšle Izbrane pesmi, 1946. prvi zvezekZbranega dela, ki se je <strong>za</strong>ključilo šele 1977. s tretjim zvezkom. Leta 1967je v samostojni pesniški zbirki izšla Kosovelova eksperimentalna poezijain takrat se je razkrilo »dotlej neznano poglavje slovenske <strong>književnost</strong>i,lahko pa bi dejali tudi – evropske avantgarde.« (Flaker, 1983, 7).Njegov pesniški opus obsega impresionistično liriko, ko pa se je v letih1924-25 seznanil z italijanskim futurizmom, nemškim ekspresionizmom,zenitizmom ter berlinskim in ruskim konstruktivizmom, je njegova poezijaprešla v eksperimentalno fazo, v njegove znamenite konse, kot jih sam poimenuje.Od poznega poletja 1925 dalje se je predajal tudi revolucionarniliriki. Zanimivo pri Kosovelu je prav to, da se je z vsemi tremi »smermi«ukvarjal sočasno, da torej v času avantgardizma in politično orientiranelirike ni opustil svoje impresionistične ustvarjalnosti. Bralci so Kosoveladolga leta poznali le po njegovi impresionistični in deloma <strong>za</strong>dnji političniustvarjalnosti. Kot rečeno, je sredi šestdesetih let postal aktualen tudi kotavantgardistični pesnik, saj je bilo dotlej objavljenih le kakšnih petnajstpesmi iz »oddelka konstrukcij«.Prav takšna Kosovelova izredno intenzivna pesniška in miselna usoda jespodbudila vrsto literarnozgodovinskih raziskav. Tako je bilo sredi osemdesetihlet dokončno ugotovljeno, da smo bili Slovenci na intenziven načinvključeni v avantgardistična gibanja dvajsetih let 20. stoletja, ki jih danesskupno poimenujemo zgodovinska avantgarda, s tem pa se je poka<strong>za</strong>lo, daje šlo prav pri Kosovelu <strong>za</strong> pojave, ki so v celoti ustre<strong>za</strong>li merilom evropskihavantgard. Tako je bila dokončno spodnesena Willetova te<strong>za</strong>, da južnood črte Dunaj – Budimpešta ni bilo avantgardnih gibanj. (gl. Willet, 9).Slovensko zgodovinsko avantgardo je potemtakem mogoče videti kotenotno in kontinuirano gibanje, saj z intermedialnega vidika seže vse odliterarnega prek likovnega do gledališkega in glasbenega eksperimenta,vsebuje pa tudi konstitutivne elemente sleherne avantgarde, vse od javnihnastopov, skupinske dejavnosti, manifestov, revij in logičnega <strong>za</strong>poredjaposameznih faz od estetskega, etičnega in političnega prevrednotenja.Kosovel predstavlja njeno notranjo konstanto.3.Literarno vedo je doslej k povezovanju Kosovela s konstruktivizmom navajalodejstvo, da je predvsem v dnevniških <strong>za</strong>piskih in korespondenci po-46
janez vrečko: srEčko kosovel in evropska avantgardagosto omenjal ta pojem, da je svoje pesmi poimenoval s kratico kons, enakopa je želel nasloviti tudi revijo, ki bi jo izdajal in ji bil glavni urednik.4.Kljub temu so ga nekateri povezovali z italijanskim futurizmom, čeprav žebežen pogled na njegov manifest Mehanikom pokaže, da Kosovelu ni bilodo futurističnega oboževanja kinetične lepote in moderne tehnike. Zavrnilje Marinettijevega mehaničnega človeka in njegove »osvobojene besede«(parole in libertà) in se <strong>za</strong>vzel <strong>za</strong> novega človeka, ki ga piše z veliko <strong>za</strong>četnico.Podobno velja tudi <strong>za</strong> zenitizem in njegove »besede v prostoru«(Worte im Raum), ki so mu pomenile le golo igračkanje.Kosovel je v svojem poetskem repertoarju <strong>za</strong>pisal skoraj vse pomembnejšebesede iz tedanjega tehničnega arzenala, od avtomobila, brzovlaka,letala, torpeda, motorja itd. in imel do njih ambivalenten odnos. Jasno muje bilo, da je prav razvoj moderne tehnike <strong>za</strong>nesel med ljudi kali izobrazbe.»Radio, brzojav, pošta, železnica, parobrodi, časopisi, knjige so pospeševalcirazvoja«. »Avtomobil je sen<strong>za</strong>cija«, »Avtomobil 4 km, misli 1 km, stremljenje100 m«. Kosovelu je bilo jasno, da je tehnika plod razuma in <strong>za</strong> sodobnegačloveka bolj <strong>za</strong>nimiva kot umetnost (gl. 3, 111), je pa tudi tista, kiodtujuje človeka, ga mehanizira in brezdušno civilizira. Zato je Kosovelovoizhodišče, da »ljudi se ne da mehanizirati«, »človek ni avtomat«, <strong>za</strong>to »Padi,mrtvi človek … suženj mehanike«. Če je bil prej <strong>za</strong>nj avtomobil sen<strong>za</strong>cija,je postal zdaj naprava, ki »škropi blato«, »Avto nima svobodne volje«, »V mehaniki ni kulture«, »Vlak je počasen kakor črni polž. Misel je kakorblisk.« Podobno velja <strong>za</strong> Kosovelov odnos do mestne civili<strong>za</strong>cije, do njenihštevilnih slepil, ki pritiskajo na človeka in vodijo Zahod v neizbežen propad,v smrt Evrope. Svet tehnike je svet, v katerem človek izgublja svojo prvobitnost,organskost, sposobnost paradoksnega mišljenja, to je svet »trudnegaevropskega človeka«, ki je v »ekstazi smrti«.Vse to potrjuje, da je bil Kosovel <strong>za</strong>res daleč od Marinettijevih stališč,da je imel distanco do velemestnega, <strong>za</strong>baviščnega, cirkusantskega, verižniškega,prešuštniškega in taylorjanskega docela zmehaniziranega ambientatekočih trakov, da je opo<strong>za</strong>rjal pred slepo glorifikacijo »stoletja, ki semehanizira« in pred tem, kar je učil Marinetti – da bo preživel le, kdor sebo pustil mehanizirati. Rešitev vidi Kosovel v paradoksu, ki mu pomeni»skok iz mehanike v življenje«, s čimer se navezuje na zenitistično terminologijo,v kateri je paradoks razumljen kot gibljivost duha, kot obči pogojobstoja, ne pa kot nesmisel. Iz Kosovelovega manifesta tedaj razločno vejenasprotje med življenjem, ki je živo, iskrivo, paradoksalno, električno – inmehaničnim in mehaniko, ki je brezdušna, ne razume paradoksa. Čeprav jemanifest napisan kot živi apel mehanikom in šoferjem, upravljalcem modernihstrojev, je njegova vsebina namenjena tistim, ki so zmožni skočitiiz mehanike <strong>za</strong>to, da bi uničili človeka-stroj. Zato je drugi del Manifestahvalnica Novemu človeku, človeku iz krajev, kjer »svita se; ali čutite tosvetlikanje?«, ki ga bo Kosovel imenoval tudi konstruktivni človek, dobo,47
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAki ji bo pripadal, pa dobo konstruktivnosti (gl. 3, 591 -783). Kosovel samna več mestih pove, kje si mora umetnost tega novega človeka iskati vzorovin zgledov: tam, kjer »jutro prihaja, od vzhoda prihaja, … z rdečimplaščem prihaja«. (3, 93).4.Pomembno avantgardistično gibanje, ki ga je Kosovel odlično poznal, jebilo zenitizem. Revija Zenit, ki je sodila med pet najpomembnejših avantgardističnihrevij v tedanji Evropi, je od ustanovitve leta 1921 propagiralanovo umetnost, ki ne bo več elitistična, muzejska in kavarniško dekadentna,ampak bo temeljila »na novih temeljih konstruktivizma«, ki bodo prerodiliin balkanizirali Evropo. Pri tem bo prišlo do novega tipa kulture inčloveka z balkanskim žigom etike in neposredne človečnosti. Kosovel jebil nekaj časa že nevarno obremenjen z zenitizmom, saj ga v dnevnikihomenja kar vsakih nekaj strani, prisostoval je obema zenitističnima večeromav Ljubljani, v njegovi <strong>za</strong>puščini se je ohranilo nekaj zenitističnih tiskov,Zenit in dela iz Zenitistične biblioteke pa si je prinesel celo na poletne počitnicedomov v Tomaj. Korespondenca in dnevniški <strong>za</strong>piski leta 1924 pokažejo,da razen Zenita Kosovel drugih revij sploh ni omenjal. Od poletja1924 pa do pozne pomladi 1925 je bil Zenit edina avantgardistična revija,ki jo je resno študiral, celo »<strong>za</strong> na<strong>za</strong>j«, vse do prvih številk. Tu se je lahkoinformiral o berlinskem konstruktivizmu, o usmeritvah De Stijla, o ruskihproduktivistih, čeških poetistih, italijanskih futuristih itd. S tako <strong>za</strong>snovanimZenitom je urednik Micić poka<strong>za</strong>l »model sodelovanja med avantgardami,kakršen je sicer veljal po vsej Evropi. Šlo je <strong>za</strong> hitro povzemanje stališč,vzorcev, izkušenj …« (Krečič, 17). Kos s tem v zvezi opo<strong>za</strong>rja kar navzore in primere konstruktivistične poezije, ki so mu bili »morda najbližji,če že ne kar edini praktični zgled pesnjenja v modernističnem načinu.«(Kos, 45). Naj vnaprej opozorimo, da bo treba razlikovati med Kosovelovozenitistično teoretsko fazo v »novem načinu« in praktično izvedbo konsov,ki bodo seveda daleč od zenitističnih »praktičnih zgledov.«V tem smislu so posebej <strong>za</strong>nimivi Kosovelovi Dnevniški <strong>za</strong>piski VII, kiso nastajali v aprilu in maju 1925, se pravi v času, ko se je pesnik nadvseintenzivno ukvarjal z zenitističnim konstruktivizmom in se ob nastopih zenitistovtudi prepričal o njihovi metodah in ciljih. Spoznal je, da poezije nebo več mogoče graditi na »ekspanzivnosti čustva«, da »pesem ne more bitiiz samih luninih žarkov spletena«, pesem Rime vsebuje številne elementeMicićevega Kategoričnega imperativa, od rim do fraz, deklamatorstva insentimentalnosti. V Konsu ABC ukazuje srcu, naj ostane mrzlo, »Steklenicav kotu pove več kakor zbirka praznih rim«, v Prostituirani kulturi se sprašuje:»Ali si norec ali kaj, da jokaš z listjem v vetru?«Lajež postane edina protiutežpoetu, ki »javka po mesečini« in <strong>za</strong> katerega je edino primeren klistir.Sentimentalno hrepenenje po ženski je odlično ironizirano z onomatopoetičnimizvoki veslanja: klap, klap. Micićev Kategorični imperativ je <strong>za</strong>Kosovela postal »program in temelj <strong>za</strong> delo z jasnimi načeli anti-estetike«,48
janez vrečko: srEčko kosovel in evropska avantgardanjegova Zenitozofija pa ga je prepričevala, da se je potrebno osvoboditi poslušnegakruha sentimentalnosti. (Zenit, 1924, 26-33). Kosovel je sprva računalz revolucionarno razsežnostjo zenitističnega konstruktivizma, kmalupa se mu je <strong>za</strong>zdel le kot verbalno in zgolj formalno opredeljivo igračkanjes plitkim in kratkotrajnim učinkom, <strong>za</strong>to se je odločil <strong>za</strong> kritiko Zenita, kotse je s podobnih stališč lotil tudi italijanskega futurizma, s tem pa <strong>za</strong> preusmeritevsvojega svetovnega nazora in <strong>za</strong> drugačno pesniško prakso.5.Iz vsega povedanega je videti, da je Kosovel dobro poznal številne izme svojegačasa, vseh žal nismo mogli omeniti, a se <strong>za</strong> nobenega ni odločil, ker jimje šlo le <strong>za</strong> eksperimentiranje s formo, le <strong>za</strong> spremembo literature in umetnosti,ne pa življenja v celoti. Zato je moral naposled svoj pogled usmeriti ktistim smerem, ki so ob formalno-revolucionarnem upoštevale tudi človekaprihajajoče »konstruktivne dobe«, ki so torej ob revoluciji forme upoštevaletudi »revolucionarno vsebinskost«. Takšen pa je bil med gibanji dvajsetihlet predvsem ruski konstruktivizem, ki je idealno pove<strong>za</strong>l moderno tehnikoin novega človeka, Kosovelovega človeka prihodnje konstruktivne dobe,kar je bilo pri njegovem obratu k takratni politični levici na Slovenskem odločilno,seveda pa tesno pove<strong>za</strong>no z njegovim pisanjem konsov.Primerjava med idealiziranjem in fetišiziranjem strojev in moderne tehnikev italijanskem futurizmu, ki je poskušal mehanizirati tudi človeka, into do tiste mere, da ga bo mogoče kadarkoli nadomestiti ali <strong>za</strong>menjati zdrugim mehaničnim človekom ali njegovim mehaničnim delom – in simbolomruskega konstruktivizma, Tatlinovim spomenikom III. internacionali,pove dovolj. Ta žal nikdar udejanjena <strong>za</strong>misel takrat najvišje stavbena svetu bi bila namreč vsa posvečena človeku, saj bi z vgrajenimi geometrijskimitelesi stožca, piramide in valja, ki bi krožili okoli lastne osi, vnjih pa bi bili radijska postaja, največja knjižnica na svetu in ura, s svojoinformacijsko gostoto skrbela <strong>za</strong> kar največjo informiranost novega, »prihajajočega«človeka. Tatlinu torej ni šlo, kot futuristu Marinettiju, <strong>za</strong> goloidolatrijo strojne tehnike, kjer je bil lahko dirkalni avtomobil lepši od NikeSamotraške (pri Kosovelu je »avtomobil naprava, ki škropi blato«), ampak<strong>za</strong> proces, ki se <strong>za</strong>čenja pri človeku in njegovi duhovni preobrazbi, tej pabo sledila tudi sprememba ekonomskih odnosov. Kosovel je deloval naisti valovni dolžini. Na svoj spis, ki je v rokopisih ohranjen pod naslovomPropad družbe in umetnosti (gl. 3/1, 807), je Kosovel pod naslovom v oklepajuin s svinčnikom pristavil: »Bela nova družba bodočnosti«, do katerebo mogoče po njegovem priti samo prek »belih barikad«, torej z nekrvavo,duhovno revolucijo.Zanima nas, koliko je Kosovel poznal temeljna načela ruskega literarnegakonstruktivizma, ki je deloval kot Literarni center konstruktivistov(LCK), s katerimi ga je lahko seznanil njegov prijatelj Ivo Grahor, ki jesredi leta 1924 ilegalno prebegnil v Sovjetsko zvezo in se pozimi 1925vrnil domov.49
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAZa LCK je bil značilen poskus sinteze številnih evropskih izmov, PoGrüblovem mnenju se v tem kaže »sintetični« moment konstruktivističnegaliterarnega gibanja, »poskus, kako vse znane postopke združiti v skupnipoetski inventar«.Poznavanje načel LCK-ja je Kosovelu končno omogočilo modifikacijonjegovih konsov <strong>za</strong> potrebe slovenskega pesniškega prostora, v katerem jebilo še vedno treba upoštevati specifičen položaj jezika in s tem pesniškebesede. Literatura je imela namreč v novejši slovenski zgodovini narodnokonstitutivno funkcijo, kar je sicer veljalo tudi <strong>za</strong> nekatere druge narodev Avstro-Ogrski monarhiji. Angleški zgodovinar Taylor je <strong>za</strong>nje uveljavilmisel, da so jih preprosto rodili pesniki. Ustanovitev države SHS po prvisvetovni vojni je bila <strong>za</strong> Slovence po dolgih stoletjih prvo upanje v samostojnodržavnost, <strong>za</strong>to bi zdaj lahko razpadla funkcionalna zve<strong>za</strong> literarnegain nacionalnega. Kosovel je spočetka pristajal na to, da so se zgodovinskepotrebe naroda »glede na literaturo že povsem spremenile«, kmalu pase je poka<strong>za</strong>lo, da jih bo moral še zmeraj upoštevati, saj je sprevidel ničnostdržave SHS prav <strong>za</strong>radi velikosrbskega nacionalizma.Šele z osrednjim postopkom LCK-ja, z načelom gruzifikacije ali maksimalneobremenitve teme, je Kosovel lahko popolnoma uveljavil svojpesniški eksperiment. V konsih je sintetiziral intenzivne lirske elemente zmatematičnimi, kemijskimi, pikturalnimi, tipografskimi in drugimi intervencijamiskupaj s političnimi izjavami. Vendar se do tod njegovi konsi nebi v ničemer razlikovali od zenitističnih in drugih praktičnih zgledov. Kerpa smo ugotovili, da teh ni mogel sprejeti, saj so ti izmi izhajali iz transracionalnega,abstraktnega pojmovanja besede , iz njihovega naključnegakolažiranja, kot je to veljalo <strong>za</strong> Marinettijeve parole in libertà, <strong>za</strong> MicićeveWorte im Raum, <strong>za</strong> <strong>za</strong>umni jezik ruskih futuristov, se je moral Kosovel odločiti<strong>za</strong> »pesmi iz besed«, kjer je »vsaka beseda svet <strong>za</strong>se«, to možnost pamu je edini ponudil prav LCK. Teoretik LCK-ja Zelinski je namreč postavil<strong>za</strong>htevo, da mora pesem ohranjati svojo logično pomensko razsežnost gledena celoto pesmi. Ta <strong>za</strong>hteva je Kosovelu še posebej ustre<strong>za</strong>la, saj je imels konsi resne namene glede objave. V svoji definiciji konstruktivizma jeKosovel jasno povzel <strong>za</strong>hteve LCK-ja in Zelinskega: »Vsebina se hoče izražativ živi, svobodni organični obliki, biti hoče vsebina in oblika obenem,od tod konstruktivizem.« (3, 13). Iz Kosovelovega pristanka na sintetičnimoment LCK-ja so končno nastali konsi, kot jih poznamo danes in pomenijoposebnost v evropskem konstruktivističnem kontekstu in enega njegovihvrhov. (gl. Flaker, 1983, 77). V njegovih konsih »znotraj dezintegracijedeluje integracija in znotraj modernističnega razbitja še zmeraj klasični redstvari … Antipoezija se spreminja v poezijo, v ‘pesem’, ki jo je Kosovel vresnici še zmerom branil.« (Paternu, 102). Kosovel je ustvaril prostorsko,arhitektonsko in vizualno pesem, v kateri ni bilo prostora <strong>za</strong> abstraktno,naključno, <strong>za</strong>umno, samoilustrativno pojmovanje besede. »Črke rasto vprostor, glasovi so kakor stavbe, … Svetlikanje prostora … svetloba besede.«»Vse je arhitektura, pesništvo, muzika, slikarstva ni več«. (3, 718).»Razvoj k prostoru. Vsaka beseda je svet <strong>za</strong>se / gibanje med temi svetovi«.Umetnina – arhitektonski problem«. (3, 703). Le takšna koncepcija besede50
janez vrečko: srEčko kosovel in evropska avantgardaje Kosovelu dovoljevala restitucijo pesmi kot moderne pesmi s smotrnoin logično porabo besednega in arhitektonskega gradiva, kjer se je vse šezmeraj dogajalo v »svetlobi besede« kot njene pomenske razsežnosti.Vse to nam omogoča razumeti Kosovelovo vztrajanje v konstruktivizmu,saj mu noben drug izem, nobeno drugo gibanje tistega časa ne bi dopustilotakšne sinteze eksperimentalnega, lirskega in levo ideološkega, prežetegaz najvažnejšim, s pomensko razvidnostjo pesmi. Prav na tej točki se jeKosovel odločil zoper vsa gibanja, ki tega niso dopuščala ali upoštevala, odzenitizma pa do futurizma. Ob tem pa je treba omeniti, da je Kosovel iz ruskegaliterarnega konstruktivizma prevzel še <strong>za</strong>htevo, da mora biti pesemskimaterial akcentuiran ali zveden v fokus na vnaprej določenem mestukonstrukcije, ki se tako vzvratno nanaša na celoto pesmi. (Grübel, 125).Če si prikličemo v spomin Kosovelovo definicijo konstruktivistične pesmi,ki se je glasila »Pesem mora biti kompleks«, in če ta kompleks razumemokot nekaj, kar je med seboj speto, zve<strong>za</strong>no, sestavljeno v celoto izveč delov, potem vidimo, da je bila ta opredelitev blizu načelu konstruktivističnegruzifikacije, saj se je kompleks tu nanašal na montažni princip, kije prvi pogoj in material <strong>za</strong> gruzificirano pesem, v kateri je načelo montažepreseženo. V tem je tudi razlika med Kosovelovo <strong>za</strong>četno zgolj teoretskoopredelitvijo <strong>za</strong> konstruktivizem, ko je pesem še definiral kot kompleks, innjegovo poznejšo praktično izvedbo, ko se je že seznanil z ruskim literarnimkonstruktivizmom, čeprav je probleme in rešitve <strong>za</strong> svoje konse že prejgenialno anticipiral.Kosovel je potemtakem v svojih konsih sintetiziral številne tedanjeavantgardistične tendence in jih gruzificiral na estetskem in ideološkemnivoju. Ruski literarni konstruktivizem se je med vsemi izmi dvajsetih letob tipografskem, pikturalnem, ideološkem in estetskem gradivu edini <strong>za</strong>vzemaltudi <strong>za</strong> pomensko razsežnost besede in <strong>za</strong> restitucijo pesmi po načeluhermenevtičnega kroga, hkrati pa poskušal uveljaviti človekovo ustvarjalnostin svobodo, <strong>za</strong>to je Kosovelu nadvse ustre<strong>za</strong>l. Rigorozno pa je <strong>za</strong>vračalvse tiste usmeritve, ki so se <strong>za</strong>vzemale le <strong>za</strong> svobodne besede brez slehernegapomena, ob tem pa pristajale še na mehaniziranje človeka, strojnodinamiko, glorifikacijo moderne civili<strong>za</strong>cije brez distance. Zenitizem, italijanskifuturizem in berlinski konstruktivizem so bili tu posebej na udaru.Zdaj je šele mogoče razumeti, kaj je imel Kosovel v mislih, ko je vsvojem manifestu Mehanikom govoril o prvi bojni napovedi vsem mehanizmomv državi SHS, ki da se je zgodila v Sloveniji. Očitno je bil mnenja,da bi se z njegovimi konsi prav v Sloveniji dogodil premik, ki ga v okviruSHS niso zmogli opraviti ne zenitisti in tudi ne kdo drug.Po vsem povedanem je tudi razumljivo, <strong>za</strong>kaj se Kosovel ni intenzivnejeukvarjal z lepljenkami; ohranjene so samo tri, ena iz aprila 1925, dve pa skonca decembra 1925/26. Lepljenke namreč temeljijo na montažnem postopku,na naključnem verbalnem kolažiranju, <strong>za</strong> konse pa je temeljno izhodiščeže omenjena konstruktivistična gruzifikacija, kjer je montaža le edenod elementov pri t. i. maksimalni obremenitvi vsebine, ki mora biti razvidnaod <strong>za</strong>četka do konca. Z avantgardističnega stališča so lepljenke konservativnejše,saj sodijo v čas nereflektiranih avantgardističnih postopkov,51
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAv katerem sta bila pomembna predvsem estetski vidik in prelom s tradicijo,gruzificirani konsi pa so v službi etičnega in političnega prevrednotenja.6.Kosovel se je <strong>za</strong> javno nastopanje in <strong>za</strong> svoj vstop v slovenski kulturniprostor, ki ga imenuje prostor laži, <strong>za</strong>čel pripravljati s povsem drugačnimpesniškim programom, ki pa naj bi, tako kot njegovi konsi, stopal »vzporednoz evropskim razvojem«. (3,658).Eksperimentiranje s konsi mu ni prineslo odrešitve, pomenili so mu lepot »preko mostu nihilizma na pozitivno stran« (3, 398), ki ga opiše tudikot premik na levo: »Iz absolutne negacije, nihilizma, sem polagoma stopilz <strong>za</strong>prtimi očmi na pozitivno stran. Z <strong>za</strong>prtimi, da se najprej malo privadim,potem jih odprem … Škoda, da ne morem priznati absolutno nobene diktature.Kljub temu, da sem vedno simpatiziral z levo, nisem mogel razumetinjihove ozkosrčnosti. Danes vidim več: oči se odpirajo tudi njim, ki sobili do sedaj <strong>za</strong>prti v teorije. In jaz sem z njimi.« (3, 400). V istem pismuKosovel napoveduje tudi, da bojo »okupirali list Mladino« (3, 400/1), vkateri se bo dalo »marsikaj napisati«, čeprav to ne bo več s področja »najmodernejšega«,marveč s področja »ekstremnega« v politično-revolucionarnemsmislu. Že 1. septembra 1925 namreč beremo v pismu Obidovi, dapripravlja zbirko pesmi Zlati čoln, ki jo kani jeseni »definitivno prodati«.Obenem pa jo obvešča, da je »<strong>za</strong>čel hoditi tudi v pesmih ekstremno pot;moj najnovejši ciklus pesmi, … Integrali, ima popolnoma svoj lasten, posebenznačaj. Mislim, da bom z njimi priredil recitacijski večer.« (3, 402).Kosovel v tem pismu najprej pove, da je <strong>za</strong>čel z ekstremno poezijo, kibo imela »poseben značaj«, kar pomeni, da je morala nastajati konec poletja1925, ko je tudi sicer »prestopil na levo«, pove pa tudi, da z njo mislipripraviti recitacijski večer. Gre torej <strong>za</strong> poudarjanje vsebinskih razsežnostinove poezije, kar se docela sklada z njegovo ugotovitvijo, da je bila »revolucijaforme preplitka in prekratkotrajna, revolucija, ki jo oznanjamo, jerevolucija vsebine evropskega človeka.« (3, 658). Nova vsebina je ve<strong>za</strong>nana »ekstremno pot«, ekstremno v politično-vsebinskem, revolucionarnemsmislu. Gre seveda <strong>za</strong> konspirativno oznako revolucionarnega značaja tehpesmi iz cikla Integrali, saj ne smemo po<strong>za</strong>biti, da je to pismo pisal političniaktivistki, poznejši članici KP Italije, ki se je s poezijo ukvarjala lekratek čas, ves preostali del življenja pa je posvetila politiki. Zato ji jeKosovel v pismu 27. 7. 1925 <strong>za</strong>pisal, da je iz njenih besed v <strong>za</strong>dnjem pismuspoznal, kakšno pot hodi, in dodal, da je tudi sam »na isti poti, to se pravi,k istemu cilju grem.« (3, 399).Kosovel je potemtakem načrtoval Integrale kot »socialistični pisatelj«,ki piše <strong>za</strong> novega »konstruktivnega človeka«, hkrati pa se je jasno <strong>za</strong>vedal,da se »natihoma približuje čas, ko bomo morali definitivno izreči, izpovedatisvojo besedo« (3, 568), kar je že spet pove<strong>za</strong>no z Integrali in recitacijskimvečerom, ki ga je Kosovel načrtoval. Prav prikrivanje lastnih konsovpred prijatelji in širšo javnostjo in sprotno podiranje vseh načrtov v zvezi52
janez vrečko: srEčko kosovel in evropska avantgardaz njihovo objavo, kot sta bila načrtovana revija Konstrukter in KONS, patudi usoda Zenita, ki v danem trenutku ni znal izrabiti svojega položaja inse pove<strong>za</strong>ti z levico, so Kosovela silili na realna tla, k okupaciji Mladinein k politično ekstremni poeziji, zbrani v ciklu Integrali, s katero bo javnonastopil.Ali ni po vsem povedanem preobrat Kosovelove poetike od konsov k integralomočitna posledica informacije od zunaj, informacije o vsem tistem,kar se je dogajalo v Rusiji, kjer so konstruktivisti na podoben način skušalirešiti <strong>za</strong>voženo futuristično revolucijo prav s ponovno in veliko skrbjo <strong>za</strong>ljudske množice? S tem je tudi Kosovelova poezija dobila razsvetljenske inpedagoške razsežnosti (»Pri nas bomo vse ljudi izobrazili«; 3, 690 ). Dobilaje tudi novo ime: konstruktivna poezija, zbrana v ciklu Integrali, ki ga boizdala <strong>za</strong>ložba proletarskih piscev SHS Strelci.S tem premikom »na levo« je pove<strong>za</strong>na prav Kosovelova <strong>za</strong>misel <strong>za</strong>»internacionalno zvezo proletarskih pisateljev, najprvo pri nas, SHS, potemv inozemstvu« (3, 698), ki znova dokazuje Kosovelovo izjemno obveščenost;znano je, da v prvi polovici dvajsetih let v Evropi še ni bila formiranamednarodna književna organi<strong>za</strong>cija, kar je videti tudi iz Kosovelovega <strong>za</strong>pisa,saj ve, da česa takega v inozemstvu še ni. Domnevati smemo, da jetudi ta pobuda, kot številne druge, ob Grahorjevem posredovanju prišla izRusije. Tu se je leta 1923 LEF formalno pove<strong>za</strong>l z Moskovsko zvezo proletarskihpisateljev (MAAP) . Leta 1924, v času Grahorjevega bivanja vRusiji, se jima je pridružil še Literarni center konstruktivistov in nastala jeFederacija sovjetskih pisateljev.Načrtovana zve<strong>za</strong> pisateljev SHS bi po Kosovelovih načrtih izdajalaIntegrale, zbirke z uvodi, romane itd., vse skupaj pa bi izhajalo v prav takonačrtovani <strong>za</strong>ložbi Strelci, ki bi bila <strong>za</strong>ložba že omenjene zveze proletarskihpisateljev. Da so Integrali ve<strong>za</strong>ni na tip socialno-revolucionarne poezije,je videti tudi iz tega, da Kosovel omenja vsa zgoraj navedena dejstvav enem samem Dnevniku (IX, na straneh 18, 19, 20 in 21). Med konsi inIntegrali je bila s tem <strong>za</strong>črtana nadvse ostra meja.Zanimivo je tudi, da je Kosovel v poletnih mesecih 1925, ko je pri prestopu»na levo« preživljal ustvarjalno krizo, <strong>za</strong>čel s pisanjem proze, vseod črtic pa do velikega načrta z romanom Kraševci. Tovrstna Kosovelovapri<strong>za</strong>devanja kažejo, da je tudi po tej plati sledil dogajanjem v Evropi, kjerse je v tem času »na evropski levici težišče premaknilo z avantgardne poezijena družbeno-funkcionalno prozo.« (Flaker, 1982, 186). Tega ne biomenjali, če ne bi bilo prav tako odvisno od dogajanja v ruskem literarnemkonstruktivizmu. Vemo namreč, da so po letu 1924 v Literarni centerkonstruktivistov <strong>za</strong>čeli vstopati tudi pro<strong>za</strong>isti (Grübel, 147), kar je bilo pove<strong>za</strong>noz že omenjenim premikom od eksperimentalne poezije k funkcionalniprozi, vse seveda <strong>za</strong>radi socialnega naročila, ki pa ni, kot bi naivnopričakovali, prihajalo od spodaj, iz proletarske baze, ampak od zgoraj, odpartije. Partija je namreč sprejela ideologijo avantgard, ne pa tudi njihoveumetniške govorice, kar je že zgodaj nakazovalo spopad med političnimiin umetniškimi revolucionarji, spopad, ki se je <strong>za</strong> slednje končal tragičnoin brezizhodno.53
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAČe k temu dodamo, da je eden najpomembnejših teoretikov ruskegakonstruktivizma, že omenjeni Selvinski, v Kodeksu konstruktivizma 1930govoril o »dubelrealizmu« ali realističnem realizmu, pot vanj pa je videl vuvajanju proznih postopkov v poezijo, kar naj bi odrinilo na stranski tir patetičnifuturistični jezik, potem je <strong>za</strong>deva okrog Kosovelove prozne dejavnostiše toliko jasnejša. Prav načrtovana zve<strong>za</strong> proletarskih pisateljev SHSnas prepričuje, da so bili tudi Kosovelovi načrti s prozo resni in predvsemzelo sistematični in da je <strong>za</strong> njimi stalo dobro poznavanje vseh bistvenihdogajanj v takratnem LCK-ju.6.Treba pa je poudariti, da Kosovel tudi pri tem svojem odločilnem obratu nalevo ni izgubil kritičnega pogleda in distance do svojega dela. Vzporedno ssnovanjem Zveze proletarskih pisateljev je razmišljal o takrat zelo aktualnemvprašanju o položaju inteligence v porevolucijskem razdobju, njenemprebujenju iz spanja (gl. 3, 673), o odnosu pesnika do revolucije, o tem, alije revolucija pesniku nasprotna ali ne, predvsem pa o tem, da bo pri svojemdelu in sodelavcih <strong>za</strong>hteval »duševno atmosfero, ki (pa) ne bo izbrisala znaših obrazov posebnih potez …« (3/1, 811), kar se je v tem času že dogajalov Sovjetski zvezi in, kot smo videli, tudi v LCK-ju. Podatek, da sose tudi člani LCK-ja intenzivno ukvarjali s funkcijo in mestom intelektualcevin inteligence v ruski porevolucijski družbi (Grübel, 167), je gledeKosovelovega poznavanja LCK- ja zgovoren sam po sebi.Z »okupacijo« Mladine je Kosovel končno dobil lastno glasilo in z njimprevzel pobudo na tedanji levi fronti. Prevzel jo je od Samostojne kmetskestranke jeseni 1925. Postala je dobra osnova levemu intelektualnemudelu do druge vojne in po njej. Kosovel se je oprijel Mladine, potem kose jima z Grahorjem niso posrečili načrti <strong>za</strong> mesečnik Volja, Mladina paje imela <strong>za</strong>gotovljeno finančno podporo, ki je Kosovelu prinesla denarnobrezskrbnost, kakršne še ni izkusil. S Kosovelom je Mladina dobila novo,konstruktivistično naslovnico kot zunanje znamenje <strong>za</strong> notranjo vsebinskospremembo, sam pa je postal vodilni član uredniškega odbora in uredilprvo številko drugega letnika. »Model ‘proletarske literature’ je prav vSloveniji <strong>za</strong>čel v jugoslovanskih razmerah časopis Mladina, se pravi, časopis,ki ni bil oganiziran iz središča mednarodnega gibanja. Ta model dobiobčejugoslovanski pomen <strong>za</strong>to, ker uveljavi t. i. socialno literaturo, kar je včasu ostre cenzure kriptonim <strong>za</strong> proletarsko in revolucionarno literaturo.«(Flaker, 1981, 187).Svoj izrazito politično priostren program, s katerim je Kosovel februarja1926 nastopil med rudarji v Zagorju – zelo odzivno jim je predaval oUmetnosti in proletarcu in jim bral svojo Ekstazo smrti – je želel čez nekajdni ponoviti v Ljubljani, pri tem pa je prišel v konflikt z oblastniki, saj muje tedanja oblast odpovedala gostoljubje kar v dveh ljubljanskih dvoranah.Naslednji njegov korak bi bil molk ali ilegala, morda pa tudi spor z njegovimipreveč dogmatskim prijatelji. Umrl je dvaindvajsetleten, ne da bi54
janez vrečko: srEčko kosovel in evropska avantgardamogel izdati že pripravljeno in z uvodno besedo opremljeno zbirko pesmiZlati čoln niti uresničiti katerega od številnih projektov. Nedoumljivo paostaja, kako je bilo kljub temu mogoče tolikšen pesniški in miselni potencialzgostiti v človeško kratkih dvaindvajset let. Na to je odgovoril sam, koje <strong>za</strong>pisal, da je bilo njegovo življenje »slovensko, sodobno, evropsko invečno.« (3, 321).LITERATURA(3, 321) Tako je označeno Zbrano delo Srečka Kosovela v uredništvu AntonaOcvirka, ki je izhajalo med leti 1946 in 1977. Prva št. pomeni zvezek, drugapa stran.Flaker, Aleksandar: Poetika osporavanja. Zagreb 1982.Flaker, Aleksandar: »Konstruktivna poezija Srečka Kosovela«. Delo, 28. 7.1983 (KL, str. 7).Grübel, Rainer: Russischer Konstruktivismus. Wiesbaden 1981.Kos, Janko: »Avantgarda in Slovenci«. Sodobnost 8, 9 (1980).Krečič, Peter: Slovenski konstruktivizem in njegovi evropski okviri. Ljubljana,disertacija FF 1981.Paternu, Boris: »Slovenski modernizem«. Sodobnost 11 (1985).Pirjevec, Marija: »Srečko Kosovel in slovenstvo«. Primorska srečanja 273,(2004).Willet, John: The New Sobriety 1917–1933. London 1978.Vrečko, Janez: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem.Maribor 1986.• POVZETEKUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / literarna avantgarda /konstruktivizemRazprava skuša raziskati Kosovelov odnos do italijanskega futurizma, balkanskegazenitizma in ruskega konstruktivizma. Iz celotnega Kosovelovegaopusa, tudi iz pisem in dnevniških <strong>za</strong>piskov je jasno, da se ne more zgledovatipo italijanskih »osvobojenih besedah«, saj kot slovenski pesnikin še posebej kot primorski Slovenec besedo razume kot sveto in nedotakljivo.Manifest Mehanikom to njegovo <strong>za</strong>držanost do Marinetijevega gibanjaše dodatno potrjuje. Podobno se Kosovel odvrne tudi od Micičevega zenitizma,ki ga razume kot »igračkanje«, njemu pa gre v umetnosti in v življenju<strong>za</strong> resnost, <strong>za</strong> »revolucioniranje vsebine in oblike hkrati«. Zato mu poGrahorjevi vrnitivi iz Sovjetske zveze šele ruski literarni konstruktivizem ponudipriložnost, da z načelom gruzifikacije in fokusi<strong>za</strong>cije uveljavi tip svojih55
KOSOVEL’s poeticsznamenitih konsov, v katerih gre ob prevratni formi tudi <strong>za</strong> ohranjanje pomena,objaviti pa jih misli v specializiranem glasu KONS, ki bi ga sam urejal in izdajal.Poleti 1925 pride pri njem do »obrata na levo«, s tem pa tudi do ustvaritvedrugačne, »konstruktivne« poezije, ki bi jo izdajal v proletarski <strong>za</strong>ložbi, ki bise imenovala Strelci. Vse te načrte prekine zgodnja smrt, saj umre pri svojih22. letih. Njegovi konsi pomenijo danes posebnost in enega vrhov evropskegaliterarnega konstruktivizma.56
Kosovelin hibridnost modernizmaMarko JuvanZnanstvenoraziskovalni center <strong>SAZU</strong>, LjubljanaPosredovanost tekstov in aporijeKosovelove recepcijske podobePrelomna ideja, da je zgodovina pripovedna konstrukcija, interpretacija,se je v <strong>za</strong>dnjih tridesetih letih spremenila tako rekoč v truizem, ki se je vvulgati humanistike že kar obrabil in se udobno ulegel tudi v 'zdravo pamet'literarnih zgodovinarjev . \ Ti se danes načelno dobro <strong>za</strong>vedajo, da je pri interpretiranjuin zgodovinskem kontekstualiziranju <strong>književnost</strong>i še kako odločilnavloga oblik, praks in institucij <strong>za</strong> posredovanje literarnih del. (prim.Dolinar – Juvan, ur., 2003). Z drugimi besedami: spoznavna občutljivost<strong>za</strong> mehanizme reprezentacije preteklosti, <strong>za</strong> kanale in medije, prek katerihjo opazujemo in (si) ustvarjamo podobo o njej, sodi danes h kuhnovski'normalni znanosti'. V ta splošen epistemološki okvir se prilega tudi sistemskipristop – s perspektivo, ki tekste <strong>za</strong>jema sredi literarnega življenja,vpete v družbene in kulturne okoliščine njihove produkcije, distribucije,recepcije in diskurzivnega procesiranja prek medijev, kritike, znanosti ališolstva (prim. Dović 2004). Če sprejmemo opisana načela literarnega zgodovinopisja,se nam odpre drugačen vidik na paradoks Srečka Kosovela: 1neverjetna raznorodnost njegovih pesniških tekstov, zbita v zelo kratko obdobje,že desetletja bega literarnozgodovinske pripovedi in vztrajno izigravavsakršne periodi<strong>za</strong>cijske instrumentarije.Ob upoštevanju konstruktivistične ali sistemske epistemologije pri obravnavikonkretnega, Kosovelovega primera, lahko bolje razložimo konfliktneliterarnozgodovinske klasifikacije njegove poezije, aporije v njenirecepciji, kanoni<strong>za</strong>ciji in <strong>za</strong>drege pri oblikovanju pesnikove kulturne ikone– ne<strong>za</strong>nemarljivi razlogi <strong>za</strong> vse to so namreč prav anomalije v zgodovinskihprocesih objavljanja in distribucije njegovih spisov. Povedano na kratko:v svojem kratkem življenju je Kosovel objavljal razmeroma malo, inše to največkrat v marginalnih revijah (v besedilnem korpusu, ki ga je on\Ta prispevek temelji na moji študiji »Srečko Kosovel med modernizmom,avantgardo in modernizmom«, ki je bila že objavljena v zborniku Literarni izzivi,ur. M. Štuhec idr., Ljubljana – Maribor: <strong>SAZU</strong> – Pedagoška fakulteta, 2003.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka57
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAsam uspel spraviti v tisk, manjkajo mnoga dela, ki danes veljajo <strong>za</strong> največjemojstrovine); vse knjige Kosovelove poezije so bile natisnjene šele ponjegovi smrti, nobena med njimi ni bila sestavljena po avtorjevih <strong>za</strong>mislih,pač pa po strategijah, s katerimi so gradili temelje Kosovelovega kanonauredniki (prim. Dović v tem zborniku); šele leta 1967, tj. 41 let po njegovismrti, so njegovi radikalni pesniški teksti, prej znani samo v zelo omejenemobsegu, s knjižno objavo in spremno besedo dobili veljavo enote, ki je<strong>za</strong> Kosovelov opus ključnega pomena, pa čeprav je ustvarila vtis osupljivedisonance s predstavami, ki si jih je o pesniku s Krasa javnost z literarnostroko vred ustvarila dotlej.Ko je Srečko Kosovel julija 1925 svoj položaj v svetu opredelil s pojmom»paradoks« (ZD 3/1: 399-401), si bržčas ni mogel misliti, koliko nasprotijse bo nakopičilo v recepciji in periodi<strong>za</strong>ciji njegovega dela ter v konstrukcijinjegove kanonične podobe. Kako to, da je kljub eruptivni ustvarjalnosti– izpričuje jo skoraj nepregledna <strong>za</strong>puščina hlastno popisanih listov inlističev – objavljal tako malo? Samo <strong>za</strong>to, ker kot mladenič s podeželskegaobrobja in brez socialnega kapitala ni mogel prodreti v etablirana nacionalnaglasila? Ker uredniki niso znali dojeti njegovega umetniškega formata(v njem so videli <strong>za</strong>poznelega dediča ali celo epigona slovenske moderne)?Morda <strong>za</strong>to, ker se je pesniško iskal tudi sam, in napisal na desetine tekstov,ki bodo težko kdaj delovali drugače kot <strong>za</strong>četniško? Ali <strong>za</strong>to, ker je bil dodiskur<strong>za</strong> osrednjih slovenskih kulturnih revij precej kritičen, saj se mu jezdel estetsko in politično odvisen od prevladujočih meščanskih ideologij, vprimerjavi s sodobnimi dogajanji po svetu pa <strong>za</strong>poznel in premalo radikalen(prim. Zadravec 1986: 412)?Vsaj toliko verjeten razlog kot omenjene možnosti je po mojem tudita, da je Kosovel vse od leta 1922 – opogumljen z zgledom Podbevškovihavantgardističnih nastopov in poznejših revijalnih poskusov (Trije labodjein Rdeči pilot) – snoval svojo lastno distribucijsko strategijo, drugačno odtistih, ki so bile tedaj v navadi na slovenskem literarnem polju: 2 <strong>za</strong> objavosvojih besedil, zlasti najdrznejših, je skušal vzpostaviti alternativenmedijski kontekst, kakršnega so po Evropi razvile zlasti umetniške ali političneavantgarde. Ta bi moral biti v primerjavi z uveljavljenimi literarnimiinstitucijami primernejši tako avtorjevi etični občutljivosti <strong>za</strong> sodobno življenjekakor tudi njegovemu antiesteticističnemu razumevanju umetnostiin utopični družbeni angažiranosti. L. 1924. je v rokopisu O poslanstvuumetnosti <strong>za</strong>pisal, da umetnost ni namenjena konvencionalnemu »uživanjulepote«, saj je »prav tako mogočna sila, ki življenje vodi, kakor, recimo,politika, gospodarstvo, le s to razliko, da je religiozno duhovna sila, ki jeobenem predpodoba človekove enotnosti in popolnosti« (ZD 3/1: 86).Izhodiščna socialna oblika <strong>za</strong> obtok in uveljavljanje modernih estetskih,etičnih in ideoloških matric je bil vse od jenske romantike (in njenegaAthenäuma) do modernizma in avantgard 20. stoletja literarno-umetniškikrožek, krog generacijsko pove<strong>za</strong>nih somišljenikov. Šlo je <strong>za</strong> razne variantezdruževanja intelektualne elite, ki je – na obrobju uveljavljenih družbenihnazorov, estetskih konvencij in dominantnih kanalov javnega kulturnegakomuniciranja – znotraj sebe, med člani skupine razvila neverjetno inten-58
MARKO JUVAN: Kosovel in hibridnost modernizmazivno izmenjavo potencialno relevantnih informacij 'od zunaj', predvsempa svojih lastnih koncepcij, programov in dosežkov, kar je početju vsakegačlana dajalo individualni smisel, ki je odtehtal morebitni izostanek javnegapriznanja. Na podlagi okrepljene interne komunikacije, občutja solidarnostiter vrednostne, vedenjske in diskurzne kohezije so takšne skupine iskale šeraznovrstne, včasih nasprotujoče si zunanje opore – bodisi v navezovanjuna sorodne skupine doma in na tujem, v preteklosti in sodobnosti, bodisi vpridobivanju naklonjenosti vidnih kritikov, mnenjskih voditeljev in v novihoblikah mecenstva, zbirateljstva, špekulativno ve<strong>za</strong>nih na potencialnorast vrednosti del svojih varovancev, bodisi v <strong>za</strong>vezništvih s subverzivnimipolitičnimi gibanji (prim. Levenson 1991: 6; Rainey 1991). Tudi Kosovelse je oprijel takšnih vzorcev.Že leta 1922 je ustanovil ambiciozno srednješolsko glasilo Lepa Vida.Okrog sebe je zbiral generacijske somišljenike; v tem krogu je z debatamiin branji, v katerih sta se v<strong>za</strong>jemno oplajali pesniška in teoretska govorica,ustvarjal utopično vzdušje. Na izrazito humanistično idejno ozračje vKosovelovem krogu so vplivali Nietzsche, utopični socializem, ekspresionističniin tagorejevski humanizem, marksizem, socialno krščanstvo, odporniškislovenski nacionalizem (usmerjen proti italijanskemu iredentizmu injugoslovanskemu unitarizmu); svojo estetiko so si profilirali ob protimeščanskih,modernih umetniških tokovih od moderne in ekspresionizma do futurizma,zenitizma, konstruktivizma, dadaizma in nadrealizma (prim. Zadravec1986: 344–368). S krožkom, ki ga je ustanovil leta 1925 in – z gesto poklonaestetsko-političnemu izročilu moderne – poimenoval po Ivanu Cankarju, jeKosovel prirejal predavateljske in umetniško-recitacijske nastope.Namesto meščanske in prestolnične publike, ki je s svojo skupino takoali tako ni uspel pridobiti na svojo stran, je Kosovel – kot etično tenkočutenin vse bolj tudi razredno osveščen »kulturni delavec« – hotel na novoustvariti posebno občinstvo, in to predvsem z nastopi med proletariatomv provinci (Vrečko 1986: 186–212). S slikarjem Avgustom Černigojem,šolanem v Bauhausu, je leta 1925 neuspešno pripravljal konstruktivističnorevijo Konstrukter, z levičarskim pisateljskim vrstnikom Ivom Grahorjemše literarni mesečnik Volja, poleg tega pa snoval radikalno levičarsko <strong>za</strong>ložboStrelci in podobno usmerjeno knjižno serijo Integrali. Leta 1925 jes svojo skupino vendarle uspel <strong>za</strong>vzeti uredništvo Mladine in jo v številkah,ki jih je pred smrtjo še utegnil urediti, obarval umetniško in političnoavantgardno. Sodeloval je z mladimi marksisti, člani komunistične partijein sovjetofili. Toda vsa ta njegova pri<strong>za</strong>devanja so prav <strong>za</strong>radi družbenoobrobnih kanalov in medijev dolgo ostala skoraj neznana. Kosovel <strong>za</strong>radizgodnje smrti ni utegnil <strong>za</strong>dostno razviti oblik alternativne literarne distribucije,prek katerih bi lahko ustrezno publiko našli in izoblikovali njegovimoderni pesniški izdelki. Čeprav je bil avantgardam naklonjen in se je vpomembnem delu svojega opusa v obdobju 1924–26 oprijel avantgardnegapisanja, sam nikdar ni postal vzorčni avantgardist, ki bi vodil skupino, imelprogram, manifeste in bi provokativno razglasil kakšen nov izem. Edinimanifest, ki ga je napisal (Mehanikom, julij 1925), je ostal v rokopisu.Vprašanje, če bi avantgardist sploh kdaj postal, saj se je – kot razločno59
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAkaže njegovo predavanje Umetnost in proletarec iz februarja 1926 – v <strong>za</strong>dnjihmesecih lotil pisanja in delovanja v smislu »proletarske umetnosti«,vse do konca pa je vztrajal tudi pri pisanju ekspresionističnih, impresionističnihin modernističnih pesmi, ki so bile tuje udarnim avantgardističnimpostopkom (Gspan 1974: 102, 106–107; Zadravec 1986: 197–198; Vrečko1986: 121–128).Kosovel je načrtoval več lastnih pesniških zbirk, a prav nobena ni izšla.Od že pripravljene zbirke Zlati čoln (1925) se je ohranil samo njegovPredgovor, vendar prav simptomatično <strong>za</strong>znamovan z distanco do svojelirike, ki jo je po »prevratu« v umetniški in politični »ekstremizem« označevalkot mladostniško sentimentalno, »baržunasto« in preseženo (ZD 1:426-427). Navzven kritično razmerje do tovrstne lirike je razvidno še izmnogih njegovih avtoreferencialnih podob: na primer »pianist z železnimirokami«, ki razbija Kras, tj. kronotop pesnikove »baržunaste lirike«. 3 Polegredkejših ljubezenskih pesmi so v kontekst »baržunaste lirike« najverjetnejesodile značilne »kraške pesmi«, po žanru krajinsko-razpoloženjske, slogovnopa neoromantične, impresionistične in simbolistične (prim. Ocvirk1967: 52–53; Zadravec 1986: 13–42). Kosovelovo občudovanje slovenskihimpresionistov in njegove »kraške pesmi«, ki so prevladovale tudi v prvihpostumnih knjižnih objavah (Gspanovi iz l. 1927 in Ocvirkovi iz l. 1931),so izzvali recepcijsko predstavo o njem kot dediču slovenske moderne, 4poznem impresionistu in simbolistu, melanholičnem pesniku samote, bivanjskestiske, rodnega Krasa. Toda to, da je Kosovelu v letu pred smrtjouspelo natisniti monumentalno Ekstazo smrti v prestižnem Ljubljanskemzvonu (1925), še bolj pa dejstvo, da so bile po smrti objavljene številneekspresionistične in »proletarske pesmi« (na primer sonetni cikel Rdečiatom v Ljubljanskem zvonu 1931), sta bila dejavnika, ki sta prej opisanopodobo pesnika že v desetletju pred drugo svetovno vojno vznemirljivo dopolnjevalaz likom ekspresionističnega vizionarja, humanistično <strong>za</strong>vzetegaglasnika krize <strong>za</strong>hodne civili<strong>za</strong>cije in iskalca »novega človeka«.Mehanizmi kanoni<strong>za</strong>cije in ideoloških prilagoditev so Kosovela po 2.svetovni vojni, ko je na Slovenskem vladal komunizem – ta je dialektikokot doktrino sicer razglašal, v javnem diskurzu pa je idejno konfliktnostdejansko <strong>za</strong>tiral, jo spodrival s totali<strong>za</strong>cijami –, dolgo predstavljali harmonično,kot dediča moderne, pesnika Krasa, obenem pa ekspresionističnegaoznanjevalca konca buržoazne Evrope in angažiranega socialnega realista.Tako je bilo vse do leta 1967, ko je Anton Ocvirk, urednik Kosovelove<strong>za</strong>puščine, izdal Integrale '26. Ocvirk je kot urednik ni<strong>za</strong> knjižnih izdajKosovelovega dela (od Izbranih pesmi, 1931, do <strong>za</strong>dnje knjige Zbranegadela, 1977) skoraj polovico stoletja krojil pesnikovo podobo. Do razcvetaneoavantgard, ko se je v razmerah ublažene partijske oblasti s tveganimiposkusi izoblikoval umetniški in teoretski diskurz, dovzeten <strong>za</strong> politične inestetske transgresije, je <strong>za</strong>drževal izid tistega segmenta Kosovelovega poznegapesnjenja (v glavnem iz leta 1925), ki je bil najmodernejši, sam pa gaje še pri sestavljanju Zbranega dela (1946) – morda tudi <strong>za</strong>radi efemernegain kaotičnega vide<strong>za</strong> množice rokopisnih listov in lističev iz pesnikove<strong>za</strong>puščine – imel <strong>za</strong> »neizdelane, bežne <strong>za</strong>pise, polne aktualne politične60
MARKO JUVAN: Kosovel in hibridnost modernizmain ideološke tematike« (Ocvirk 1946: 436). 5 Gre <strong>za</strong> Kosovelove kolaže,konstrukcije oziroma konse in druge pesmi modernističnega ali avantgardističnegaznačaja. Leta 1967 jih je Ocvirk presenetljivo, v nasprotju s svojiminekdanjimi javnimi stališči, postavil v sam vrh pesnikovega opusa.Paradoksalno je, da je o smiselnosti objave teh tekstov moral dvomiti tudipesnik sam, saj jih je skrival celo pred najboljšimi prijatelji.Kosovel je po Ocvirkovi <strong>za</strong>pozneli in šokantni objavi »konsov« zbudil<strong>za</strong>nimanje literarne vede prav kot lik avantgardista in ta podoba prevladujev javnem diskurzu še danes. 6 Literarni zgodovinarji so v glavnem soglašali,da je bilo njegovo pesnjenje v <strong>za</strong>dnjih letih življenja nenavadno heterogeno:avtor pesmi, ki povzemajo poetološke modele pozne romantike, moderne(zlasti impresionizma in simbolizma), je pisal tudi ekspresionistično,proletkultovsko in avantgardistično. 7Ko je paradoksalna raznovrstnost Kosovelove ustvarjalnosti končno prišlav celovit razvid, se je literarno zgodovinopisje znašlo v <strong>za</strong>gati, ki stajo še <strong>za</strong>ostrili navajenost zgodovinarjev na pripovedne sheme razvoja innapredka ter predstave o literarnih smereh in obdobjih kot notranje enovitih,homogenih enotah. Ocvirk (1967: 17–18, 58 in sl.) je tako <strong>za</strong>govarjalstališče, da so Kosovelove poetike časovno razporejene: pesnik naj bisredi leta 1925 naredil odločilni in dokončni »prevrat« v »konstruktivizem«.Drugi poznavalci pa so doka<strong>za</strong>li, da je pesnik vse do konca vzporednoprakticiral različne literarne smeri, in to tako 'tradicionalne' kakortudi 'moderne' (prim. M. Kos 1997: 164). Ocvirk je v spremni študiji kIntegralom vzorec <strong>za</strong> Kosovelov presenetljivi preobrat v avantgardno pisanjeodkril v ruskem konstruktivizmu. Iskanje prvotnega in <strong>za</strong> Kosovelaodločilnega avantgardističnega vzora – poleg konstruktivizma so literarnizgodovinarji poudarjali še futurizem, delno še dadaizem in nadrealizem– po moje vodi v slepo ulico. Ne le <strong>za</strong>to, ker je avantgardizme sprejemalpredvsem prek eklektičnega južnoslovanskega zenitizma, ampak tudi <strong>za</strong>to,ker so zlasti v Srednji Evropi, literarni coni »vmesne periferije« (Tötösy1999), avantgardistični tokovi iz Italije, Rusije, Francije in Nemčije že nasplošno ustvarjali »nenavadne mešanice«. 8 Avantgarde pa so se – ne gledena bučne manifeste, ki so poudarjali njihovo prelomno novost – tako alitako medsebojno kopirale; celo radikalni dadaisti so <strong>za</strong>jemali od futuristovin ekspresionistov. Že <strong>za</strong>radi tega se mi pri Kosovelu zdi primerneje govoritio avantgardističnih tekstih kot pa o konstruktivističnih, zenitističnih,futurističnih ali nadrealističnih.Heterogenost obdobij in Kosovelov hibridni modernizemTako poskuse literarnih zgodovinarjev, da bi natančno določili avantgardističnosmer, ki naj bi ji Kosovel v resnici pripadal, kakor – na splošnejširavni – pri<strong>za</strong>devanja, kako poimenovati in periodizirati njegova ustvarjalnaobdobja, iz o<strong>za</strong>dja usmerja predstava, da sta sleherno obdobje ali literarnasmer notranje koherentna, utemeljena v istem 'duhu časa' oziroma izvedenaiz enovitega umetniškega koda, stilne konvencije. Takšna predstava je že61
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAsama na sebi problematična, ker spregleduje sociolektalno razplastenost indialoško konfliktnost sleherne kulture. Še posebej pa odpove pri <strong>književnost</strong>iod obdobja t. i. moderne na prelomu iz 19. v 20. stoletje naprej (prim. Tamás1991: 131–32; Matajc 2004), če ne že od romantike, dobe, ko je normativnapoetika z načelom posnemanja vzornih avtorjev vred izgubila primat, s tempa so se razsuli tudi pogoji <strong>za</strong> večjo enovitost stila in duha časa. To je čas, kose je, če parafraziram znamenito Barthesovo študijo, dezintegriralo »klasičnopisanje«, postopno pa ga je nadomeščalo moderno pisanje, <strong>za</strong>posleno sproblematiko netransparentnosti samega jezika (Barthes 1953). Romantikaje bila – ne samo v merilu sistema svetovne <strong>književnost</strong>i, temveč tudi znotrajnacionalnih tradicij – nedvomno že zelo raznorodna; politično je bila razpetamed revolucionarno svobodomiselnost, nacionalizem, bidermajerskikonformizem in <strong>za</strong>vzeti katolicizem, modalno med tragični patos in ironijo,estetsko pa med folklorizem, obujanje historičnih slogov, <strong>za</strong>vzemanje <strong>za</strong>naravnost, pristnost in poudarjeno subjektivno, umetno imaginacijo. Še boljneenovita je mešanica sočasno obstoječih literarnosmernih kodov v drugipolovici 19. stoletja, ki jo je literarna zgodovina, tudi slovenska, v spoznavniresignaciji poimenovala z <strong>za</strong>silno oznako »med romantiko in realizmom«ali s kakšno podobno etiketo. Toliko bolj se preplet raznorodnih usmeritevodraža v modernizmu. Zato je posebej <strong>za</strong> to obdobje smiselno <strong>za</strong>vreči vsakršenposkus nasilnega homogeniziranja obdobnih pojmov in namesto njihsprejeti pojmovanje, da se posamezno obdobje vzpostavlja ravno kot sistemraznorodnih, a med seboj dialogizirajočih diskurzov, ki se vsak po svoje odzivajona kompleks problematike, tj. na probleme, značilne <strong>za</strong> določen čas– v modernizmu oziroma v širši tradiciji modernosti od Baudelaira naprejje to na primer ambivalenca subjekta (prim. Zima 2003). Če sprejmemotakšen premislek o naravi literarnozgodovinskih obdobij, potem raznorodnostiKosovelovega pesništva v dvajsetih letih 20. stoletja ni treba razlagatisamo z anomalijami v distribuciji in recepciji njegovih tekstov, v tem, kakonam je bila književnikova podoba zgodovinsko posredovana (kar je bilatema prejšnjega poglavja), temveč jo je treba dojeti kot eminenten simptommodernizma kot sistema divergentnih sociolektov, ki se odzivajo na skupenproblemski kompleks.Kosovel v številnih metapoetskih izjavah nakazuje, da je svoje tekstepostavljal v neposreden stik z »življenjem«, s sodobnostjo, se soočal zmaterialnostjo sveta in paradoksalnim soobstojem resnic: »Moderni pesnikrazdira formo, da pride do živega neposrednega življenja.« (ZD 3/1:740); paradoks je <strong>za</strong>nj energetsko sredstvo, ki spodbija »praktični razum«meščanstva in kaže, »da eksistira mesto ene dvoje resnic« (ZD 3/1: 399).Modernizem se odpira neposredni, grobi in neurejeni realnosti v njenemzgodovinskem dogajanju. Kontingenčna resničnost stopa v <strong>za</strong>vest kot prehodna,strogo so-dobna s temporalnostjo eksistence. Tako se doživljajoča<strong>za</strong>vest (subjekt govora) umešča v mnoštvo ideologij in jezikov, ki so historičnov neprestanem spreminjanju (prim. de Man 1997; Škulj 1991, 1995).Zato je, če presojam prav, Kosovelovo vztrajanje pri sočasnem ustvarjanjuv različnih estetskih kodih treba brati kot prvovrsten simptom modernosti– kot posledico izkušnje, da vsak od teh kodov <strong>za</strong>jame določeno perspek-62
MARKO JUVAN: Kosovel in hibridnost modernizmativo, tematizira en segment resničnosti, ne more pa več simbolno obvladaticelovite slike sveta; to je v tisočerih fasetah zmožen <strong>za</strong>jeti le odprti dialogmed sociolekti.Takšna <strong>za</strong>vest je dosegla zenit v modernizmu, ki ga Peter V. Zima v lučiširšega pojma moderne – z izhodišči že v sredini 19. stoletja – sinonimnooznačuje z izrazom pozna moderna (die Spätmoderne); 9 modernizem je<strong>za</strong>nj »čas krize, v katerem se tradicionalne metafizike in ideologije izkažejo<strong>za</strong> vprašljive, čas, ki izziva kritiko« (npr. heglovske sistematične metafizike)in občutja protislovja, antinomije, dvoma, epistemološke in metajezikovneskepse (Zima 2001: 130–31; po K. Jaspersu, K. Rosenkranzu in D.Fokkemi). Za pozno moderno oziroma modernizem je ključna ambivalencavseh vrednot, kritika pojma resničnosti, reprezentacijskih oblik in individualnegasubjekta (ibid.: 132–33). Zato je razumljivo, da je modernizem ssvojo transnacionalno širitvijo – spodbujeno s sodobnimi komunikacijskimitehnologijami, prostovoljnimi ali prisilnimi eksili avtorjev, z migracijamiin življenjem v urbanih metropolah, kjer so se križali kulturni vplivi s celeoble – uveljavljal soobstoj in prežemanje umetnostnih idiomov, pluralizempesniških diskurzov. Modernizem je »umetnost dobe modernega relativizma,časa, ko so se meje živahno in pogosto nevarno premikale« (Bradbury- McFarlane, ur., 1991: 13), <strong>za</strong>nj so značilni »multikulturna raznovrstnost«,»velikanska medsebojna oplajanja« (14), »slogovna pluralnost« (21), urbani»kulturni kaos […], kontingenčni in poliglotski babilonski stolp » (98),»besnilo form in umetniških energij, ki so se izražale in opravičevale narazne načine » (199), »beda razstreljene <strong>za</strong>vesti, ujeta v razbito vesolje«(224–25). Modernizem je odziv na »scenarij našega kaosa«, je »umetnost,ki dosledno razstavlja skupnostno resničnost« (27). Iskanje stila v dobibrez skupnega stila in enovite reprezentacije realnosti <strong>za</strong>to postane izrazitosamorefleksivno početje (29).Modernizem je torej konstelacija raznorodnih, včasih nasprotujočih si poetikin etik; te pa se ne samo v posameznih tokovih, temveč tudi v avtorskihopusih in celo pesniških tekstih, kakršna je paradigmatična Eliotova Pustadežela, mešajo v hibridne in ambivalentne spoje (prim. Tamás 1991:130-36).Pri tem ni nič izjemnega tudi »dvojna lojalnost«, kakršna morda koga presenečapri Kosovelu, ki iz neoromantičnega lirskega sentimenta preskakujev cinične citate časopisov: mnogo največjih modernističnih umetnin, mednjimi romani Thomasa Manna, ohranjajo tradicionalno realistično predstavljanjein ga združujejo z modernim rentgeniziranjem <strong>za</strong>vesti in jezika, takoda se različne koncepcije sveta v enem samem delu medsebojno preskušajo(Bell 1991: 12–13; Longenbach 1991: 125).Vrednostne in politične usmeritve modernističnih pisateljev in pisateljicso nihale med aristokratizmom in plebejstvom, med hermetično estetskoezoteriko in robatostjo popularne kulture, med obujanjem konzervativnihverskih prepričanj, boemskim individualističlnim imoralizmom in političnimiradikalizmi, med nihilistično depresivnostjo, odami moderni tehniki ingroteskno karnevalskostjo, nekateri so se spogledovali s fašizmom, drugi skomunizmom, mnogi pa so bili žrtve obeh totalitarizmov (prim. Blair 1991:157). Spekter modernističnega pisanja se je razpenjal od neoklasicizma do63
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAdestrukcije vseh tradicionalnih form, od jezikovno-literarne samonanašalnosti,cepljene na simbolistično aluzivnost in šifriranje prek 'dehumaniziranega'abstrahiranja, evociranja neposrednega psihično-eksistencialnega izkustva,fantastike, miti<strong>za</strong>cije in primitivizma do fragmentariziranega popisovanjastvarnosti ter korenite družbeno-ideološke kritike, včasih pove<strong>za</strong>nez deklarativnim političnim angažmajem (prim. Hough 1991: 315–320).Kosovel je ustvarjal sredi 20. let 20. stoletja, ko je v Evropi in ZDA mogočegovoriti že o visokem modernizmu, 10 in ko so veliki avtorji, na primerPicasso, Eliot, Rilke ali Joyce, že suvereno prepletali izrazna sredstva, kiso jih izbirali v »imaginarnem muzeju« predhodnih smeri in izmov; mnogipomembni modernisti se niso držali proklamiranih poetik posameznih smeri(prim. Bradbury – McFarlane, ur. 1991: 191, 205; Hough 1991: 316; Tamás1991). S tega vidika se nam Kosovel, pa naj je bil še tako mlad, <strong>za</strong>četniškoiščoč 'svoj stil', kaže kot avtor visokega modernizma. Kosovel je modernističnopluralnost in sočasnost raznoterih umetniških govoric očitno dobrodojel. Vztrajal je prav v vmesnem prostoru, med različnimi literarnimi diskurzi20. let: poznim impresionizmom in simbolizmom, ekspresionizmom,avantgardizmom, proletkultom, novo stvarnostjo in eksistencialnim modernizmom.Kosovel se v tistem tipu svojih pesmi, kjer prevladujejo neoromantične,impresionistične in simbolistične podlage, navezuje na tradicijo estetske komunikacije,kakršno je poznala lirika od predromantike do fin de siècla. Tavzorec lirike poudarja izvzetost pesniškega sveta iz zgodovinskega in družbenegakonteksta, ga v razmerju do aktualne problematike javnega diskur<strong>za</strong>postavlja v položaj ontološko-eksistencialnega molka ali razpoloženjskegačutenja temeljev bivanja, ki ga na obrobju civili<strong>za</strong>cije omogoča le narava. 11Iz edninskega lirskega subjekta, ki je v besedilu navzoč prek psihološko verjetnihznakovnih sledi, izvira prvoosebni izpovedni govor in predpostavljaprav tako osamljenega, privatnega bralca in njegovo doživljajsko kontemplacijoestetske podobe. Dejanska zgodovinska konteksta avtorja in bralcasta ločena, nadomešča ju ontologija eksistencialne sedanjosti. Ločenostlirskega diskur<strong>za</strong> od družbene resničnosti ni samo jezikovna, konotirajo jotudi predmeti predstavljanja – <strong>za</strong> Kosovela značilne teme samote, tesnobeter podobe mirne in prazne kraške pokrajine, dreves in ptic.Za Kosovelove pesmi, ki so jih literarni zgodovinarji označevali kotekspresionistične (prim. Zadravec 1986: 80–135), je odločilna drugačna ospesemske komunikacije: subjekt besedila naslovniku sugerira, da sta njunareferencialna svetova zgodovinsko stična, da si avtor in njegovo ciljnoobčinstvo delita isti družbeni kontekst. S tem se lirska paradigma individualneestetske kontemplacije razdre. Nad estetskim prevlada etično, etikapesniškega pisanja pa se večkrat izostri v politiko govornega delovanja.Ekspresionizem je na splošno in pri Kosovelu hibridna poetika. Omahujemed tradicionalno izpovedjo in držo avantgardista, ki skuša prek mejeestetske literarne konvencije poseči v realnost sodobnega sveta.Kosovelove pesmi s pretežno ekspresionistično dikcijo <strong>za</strong>to na eni stranioznačuje hipertrofija govornega subjekta, ki je izvor teatralnih, panoramskihpredstavitev kronotopa, ki večinoma ni več podeželski, krajinski64
MARKO JUVAN: Kosovel in hibridnost modernizma(kraški), temveč neomejen, urban, globalen, celo kozmičen in mitologiziran(arhetipi kaosa, vesoljnega potopa). Kosovelov subjekt izreka nietzschejevskokritiko vrednot krščansko-meščanske civili<strong>za</strong>cije in opeva njeno»destrukcijo«. Tako je prav<strong>za</strong>prav že sam »novi človek«, tisti, ki ga sicerutopično oznanja. Po drugi strani pa se pesemski 'jaz' prepoznava tudi kot'sub-jekt' (v pomenu 'podložnika') krizne zgodovinske dobe, doživlja stiskonegotovega metafizičnega obzorja. Nič se pri Kosovelu pojavlja prek simbolovin pojmovnih besed (»nič«, »ničišče«, »nihil«, »nihilomelanholija«),včasih pa nastopi s predmetno gostoto (»iz tihe praznote raste Nič. / Vodase v žlebu odteka«). 12Kosovelov ekspresionistični kronotop je določen z globoko vrednostno,ontološko, spoznavno, politično in socialno krizo meščanske družbe v 20.letih 20. stoletja. Ta družba se je s svojimi državnimi in mednarodnimi političnimimehanizmi, z uveljavljenimi umetnostnimi in kulturnimi ustanovamiter vodilnimi ideologijami in verskimi predstavami izka<strong>za</strong>la <strong>za</strong> nemočno prispoprijemu s silovitimi izzivi modernega časa. Sunki, ki so spodnašali tradicionalnenačine samoosmišljanja, so prihajali iz različnih smeri in pri<strong>za</strong>devalirazlične družbene podsisteme: od ekonomske stagnacije prek komunističnerevolucije in vzpona fašizma do pohoda tehnike in širitve znanstvenihspoznanj, ki so relativizirala stare temelje subjekta in resnice. Kosovel svojozgodovinsko sodobnost napravi <strong>za</strong> poglavitno referenčno področje pesniškihznakov, predstavlja pa ga bodisi v prvem planu in poudarjeno bodisi vo<strong>za</strong>dju in prikrito, zgolj naka<strong>za</strong>no. V obeh primerih kontekst evocirajo tropi,na primer alegorična tipi<strong>za</strong>cija, mitologi<strong>za</strong>cija ali dereali<strong>za</strong>cija. Takšne so naprimer slike ognjene stihije, ki preplavlja »zlate stolpove Zapadne Evrope«(Eksta<strong>za</strong> smrti), ali mitološke in folklorne aluzije na vesoljni potop, cepljenena groteskno ironijo (Tragedija na oceanu). 13Subjekt v ekspresionističnih pesmih postaja pluralen, zliva se v skupnost,<strong>za</strong> katero čuti etično odgovornost, dialoško išče skritega Boga alipa briše besedilne odtise svoje osebnosti. Enači se s predmeti ali pojmi.Prvoosebni subjekt se včasih pojavlja le še v obrobju med mnoštvom glasov,ki naseljujejo izjavno strukturo. Tuji glasovi v Kosovelovih pesmih(na primer cikel Kraška vas) so citati neopredeljenih govornih dejanj. 14Kosovelove »delavske pesmi« (na primer sonetni cikel Rdeči atom) imajopodobno narativno shemo (kritična destrukcija stare družbe in utopičnakonstrukcija nove) in intimno izpoved posameznemu bralcu prav tako preobrazijov oratorski nagovor kolektiva. Toda njegovo »proletkultovsko«pisanje je sociološko in politično konkretnejše, razvidno <strong>za</strong>sidrano v industrijskookolje. Bliža se poetiki »nove stvarnosti«. Slog »delavskih pesmi«je retoričen, a dokaj pro<strong>za</strong>ičen, preprost, obarvan s političnimi termini, revolucionarnimiparolami. Pesmi izdajajo držo intelektualca-pesnika, ki seistoveti z množico delavskega razreda.V središče svojega radikalnega modernizma nas pesnik bleščeče vpeljez avtotematsko metaforiko: »Duh zbira vtise. / Iščem premikajočih seslik. … Sem kot električna iskra, / ki skače. … Aktivni duh zbira slike …Fakti preganjajo umetnost.« 15 Lirski subjekt je decentriran, ostaja brez razpoznavnegaglasu in stabilne perspektive ali pa je cona njegovega govo-65
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAra – ta je lahko 'tradicionalno' izpovedna, lirska – omejena, fragmentarnopostavljena v mo<strong>za</strong>ik brezosebnega ni<strong>za</strong>nja slik, citatnih izjav, brezimnihinformacij ali nedoločenih odlomkov iz pogovorov. Izjavna strukturaKosovelovih modernističnih besedil je <strong>za</strong>to že dialogizirana, ambivalentna,večglasna, predvsem pa medbesedilna: humanistično <strong>za</strong>vzetost, političnopozivanje in subjektivistično liričnost združuje z ironijo, cinizmom in grotesko;povzema in parafrazira aktualne kulturne, politične in znanstvenenovice iz časopisov; intermedialno namiguje na avantgardistične slike (naprimer na Fran<strong>za</strong> Marca), se aluzivno navezuje na druge avantgarde ali znjimi polemizira (na primer z dadaizmom in futurizmom).Kompozicija teksta pripada Ecovemu modelu »odprtega dela«: namestoenovitega motiva in perspektive imamo opraviti z montažo fragmentov,osamosvojenih slik, ki pa v kontrapunktu evocirajo in razvijajo skupno pomenskopolje; srečujemo se s filmskimi rezi, z 'zoomiranjem' na detajle in zbrezbrežnimi panoramami, s pluralnim in neomejenim kronotopom, v kateremse simultano prepletajo Kosovelovi čisto <strong>za</strong>sebni prostori s planetarnimiin kozmičnimi. Stilna struktura besedila je pogosto hibridna. Pesemskagovorica se slogovno ne naslanja zgolj na istorodne vzorce iz preteklosti,torej na tradicijo t. i. pesniškega stila, ampak se odpira <strong>za</strong> sodobne diskurze,tudi tiste, ki ne sodijo v domeno tradicionalnih literarnih zvrsti: od todv Kosovelovih konsih filozofski, teološki, psihološki pojmi, matematičnisimboli, besedišče sodobne tehnike, fizike, naravoslovnih znanosti, političnefraze, publicizmi, od tod mešanje vznesenega in pro<strong>za</strong>ičnega registra.Kosovel že v svoji ekspresionistični in proletkultovski pesmi opuščatradicionalno obliko individualistične estetske komunikacije. Pesemskisubjekt s svojo etično držo nakazuje, da z naslovnikom bivata v istem kriznemsvetu. Medtem ko je ekspresionistična reprezentacija družbenosti posredovanaprek pesniških tropov in s tem enovitega pesniškega jezika, pase Kosovelov radikalni modernizem s sodobnim svetom sooča tako, da gapredstavlja medbesedilno ali pa prek »zbiranja slik«, ki jih v »aktivnegaduha« prinaša spremenljiva empirična resničnost. V modernističnem tekstuse subjekt spusti na raven, ko estetska sfera, ki je bila v tradiciji avtonomna,stopa v očitno interakcijo z diskurzi znanosti, politike, tehnike, filozofijein religije, pa tudi z deli, imaginarijem in govoricami drugih umetnosti.Radikalni modernizem, ki prehaja v avantgardizem, 16 potemtakem določavelik del Kosovelovih »konsov«. Toda takšna modernistična struktura sepri Kosovelu marsikje infiltrira tudi v tekste, v katerih na videz prevladujeimpresionistična ali ekspresionistična poetika, na primer prek montažnekompozicije, 'zoomiranja' na razne detajle razdrobljenega motiva, marginali<strong>za</strong>cijesubjekta v izjavni strukturi teksta, uvajanja nedoločenih citatovtujega govora ali dezorientiranosti lirske perspektive in deteritoriali<strong>za</strong>cijisubjekta.V prika<strong>za</strong>nem sobivanju, prepletanju in hibridiziranju raznorodnih poetikje Kosovel povsem primerljiv z drugimi modernisti. Pablo Picasso jesredi 20. let brez <strong>za</strong>držkov simultano razvijal različne stile, ki jih je <strong>za</strong>porednosnoval poprej, tako da se kubistična dela srečujejo z bolj tradicionalnimfiguralnim slikarstvom (gl. Mallen 2004). Tudi eden najzgodnej-66
MARKO JUVAN: Kosovel in hibridnost modernizmaših in najvplivnejših modernističnih pesnikov, Guillaume Apollinaire (gl.Apollinaire 1992), 17 je ob pesništvu, ki se je vsaj na pogled držalo tradicionalne,čeprav mestoma ironizirane in profanizirane neoromantične erotičneizpovednosti in klasičnih verzifikacijskih pravil, gojil še fragmentarizirane,kubistične, sintaktično razdrobljene urbane pesnitve, asociativno nadrealističnofantastiko ter vizualne konstelacije. Vse to je hibridno spajal tudiv posameznih besedilih. Modernistični pluralizem in hibridnost pesniškihgovoric pa je do pojma privedel in ga nemara najbolj dosledno, življenjskoudejanjil Fernando Pessoa v svoji shizo-poetiki. Med svoje heteronime,okrog katerih je stkal pravcate biografske mistifikacije, je razporedil poetike,ki segajo od skorajda futuristično bučnega avantgardizma do sublimiranegasimbolizma, pri čemer pa vendarle ni mogoče zgrešiti njihove skupnepodlage – melanholične razrvanosti, psihične disociacije, ujete v podvojenazrcala skrajne modernistične samorefleksivnosti, a odprte <strong>za</strong> eluzivnostbiti zunaj metafizike (prim. Pessoa 1997).Manj premišljeno, a nič manj dramatično je svojo pesniško identitetogradil tudi Kosovel. Selil se je iz govorice v govorico, predvsem pa jih jehibridno prepletal. S tem je v slovensko literaturo med prvimi vtisnil izrazitpečat modernosti.opombe1O teh vprašanjih je pod naslovom Kosovelov paradoks pred nekaj leti razpravljalMatevž Kos (1997: 152–165).2Kosovel se je <strong>za</strong> Podbevškov futurizem sprva navduševal, napisal nekaj pesmiv Podbevškovi maniri, a že kmalu je do prvega slovenskega avantgardista postalpolemičen (češ da ta ni uspel ustvariti generacije in da je bil <strong>za</strong> kaj takega prevečmeščanski), ne le v korespondenci, ampak povsem izrecno celo v poeziji: v Pesmio zelenem odrešenju, napisani okoli 1924 v Podbevškovem slogu in obliki, omenja,da se je »naveličal igranja Podbevškovega« – ta <strong>za</strong>nimiva palinodija je natisnjenav Ocvirku 1967: 41–42. Kosovel je bil torej do Podbevškove avantgarde kritičen(Ocvirk 1967: 32–44; Zadravec 1986: 408–409; Vrečko 1986: 79), podobno kot dozenitizma in dadaizma, a je v dialoškem razmerju z njo vendarle oblikoval svojopesniško identiteto in načine javnega nastopanja.3Nokturno, ZD 1, 213; Rime, ZD 2, 9, Moja pesem, ZD 1, 229.4Leta 1931 je v Domu in svetu France Vodnik Kosovela izvzel iz »stvariteljevnašega novega pesniškega stila« in opozoril na njegovo nave<strong>za</strong>nost na dediščinoCankarja, Župančiča, Gradnika in Murna, Božo Vodušek pa je menil, da je bilKosovel pred smrtjo »duhovno in stilsko še epigon, vendar se je tudi že v njem nakazovalprevrat« (nav. po: M. Kos 1997: 157).5Kakšni so bili razlogi <strong>za</strong> to, se v glavnem le ugiba: mogoče so se mu »konsi«zdeli preveč nedodelani, fragmentarni, kaotični <strong>za</strong> njegov okus, čeprav je bil evropskemumodernizmu dokaj naklonjen; mogoče je mislil, da bi objava teh tekstov vrazmerah, ko so v Sloveniji vladala realistična estetska načela in dokaj akademističniokus oblasti, škodila Kosovelovemu ugledu; mogoče je uredniško delo <strong>za</strong>virala njegovabolezen in ne<strong>za</strong>upanje, da bi lahko urejanje <strong>za</strong>puščine prevzel kdo drug.67
KOSOVELOVA POETIKA6To se, resnici na ljubo, ni zgodilo toliko <strong>za</strong>radi literarne zgodovine kolikor po<strong>za</strong>slugi postmodernističnega retrogardizma (Neue slowenische Kunst) in njegovihsatelitov; po osamosvojitvi Slovenije jim je s pomočjo sofisticiranega teoretskegamarketinga uspelo, da so svojo, <strong>za</strong> časa komunizma izzivalno pozo »državnih umetnikov«uveljavili kot realno, vplivno pozicijo znotraj kulturnega imidža vladajočihstrank. Retrogardizem je celo na ravni estetsko-političnega oglaševanja kanoniziralimaginarij slovenske zgodovinske avantgarde, vključno s Kosovelom.7Jedrnata in značilna je tale formulacija: »Poezija Srečka Kosovela je zelo heterogenpojav. Nastajala je vsega nekaj let […], vendar je v njej na eksplozivennačin zbrana ta rekoč celotna duhovna in slogovna izkušnja poezije 20. stoletja:od poznega impresionizma in simbolizma mimo ekspresionizma in konstruktivizmapa do realistične socialno programske lirike. Vse to obstaja na skrajno tesnemprostoru, skoraj simultano in kaotično, brez klasičnega <strong>za</strong>poredja faz […]« (Paternu1989: 149–150).8Na to po Jeanu Weisgerberju in Evaldu Korenu opo<strong>za</strong>rja tudi Vrečko 1986:12.9Nekoliko drugačno, a še ne dovolj jasno, je razumevanje pojma Spätmoderne,kot ga predlaga Ernő Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó: ko se <strong>za</strong>vzema <strong>za</strong> hermenevtično, dekonstrukcionističnoin recepcijsko <strong>za</strong>snovano literarnozgodovinsko metodo, ki upošteva izkustvopostmoderne, namesto periodi<strong>za</strong>cijskega binoma moderna – postmoderna<strong>za</strong>govarja trihotomijo »klasična moderna – pozna moderna – postmoderna«; poznamoderna po njegovem <strong>za</strong>jema umetnost poznih 20. let in 30. let 20. stoletja, ki vnasprotju z avantgardistično diseminacijo in decentriranjem subjekta in stila težik zgodovinsko novemu formiranju literature na podlagah dialoške, intersubjektivne,jezikovno-semiotične in samorefleksivne koncepcije umetnine (Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó1999).10Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó (1999) bi na tem mestu uporabil pojem pozna moderna.11To se ujema z analizo ostankov romantičnega sindroma »lepe duše« vKosovelovi poeziji, ne le impresionistično-simbolistični in ekspresionistični, temveč– v omejenih legah in disonančnih spojih – tudi v avantgardistično-modernistični(M. Kos 1997: 141–152).12Jesen, ZD 2, 160-161; Nihilomelanholija, ZD 2, 177; Večer pred zimo, ZD 1,297.13Eksta<strong>za</strong> smrti, ZD 1, 304–305; Tragedija na oceanu, ZD 1, 403-412.14Kraška vas, ZD 1, 14-16.15Kaj se vznemirjate?, ZD 2, 46–47.16Razliko med Kosovelovim radikalnim modernizmom in avantgardizmom jemogoče razložiti tudi s teorijo govornih dejanj. Kosovelovi avantgardistični pesniškiteksti reprezentirajo govorna dejanja, ki so posneta iz javnega diskur<strong>za</strong> avantgard,na primer iz manifestov. Kosovelovi avantgardistični konsi torej delujejo tudikot pozivi, apeli, skušajo neposredno vplivati na bralca, na njegovo etično-političnostališče, ga s tem <strong>za</strong>ve<strong>za</strong>ti določeni »optimalni projekciji«, ki presega zgoljestetsko-umetniško področje. Modernistična besedila, ki jih je napisal Kosovel, pate pozivnosti nimajo: odpirajo se sicer <strong>za</strong> stvarnost, sodobnost, večjezičje drugihdiskurzov, a to dialoškost izrabljajo predvsem <strong>za</strong> samorefleksijo subjekta in pesniškegapisanja.17Ob njem so se oplajali oziroma se nanj sklicevali dadaisti in nadrealisti.68
MARKO JUVAN: Kosovel in hibridnost modernizmaLiteraturaGuillaume APOLLINAIRE, 1992: Sonce prere<strong>za</strong>n vrat. Izbor in prev. A. Berger.Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba.Roland BARTHES, 1953: Le degré zéro de l’écriture. Paris: Seuil.Michael BELL, 1991: The Metaphisics of Modernism. V: The CambridgeCompanion to Modernism. Ur. M. Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ.press. 9–32.Sara BLAIR, 1991: Modernism and the Politics of Culture. V: The CambridgeCompanion to Modernism. Ur. M. Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ.press. 157–173.173.Malcolm BRADBURY – James MCFARLANE, ur. 1991: Modernism: A Guide toEuropean Literature 1890-1930. London: Penguin books.Darko DOLINAR – Marko JUVAN, ur. 2003: Kako pisati literarno zgodovinodanes? Razprave. Ljubljana: <strong>ZRC</strong> <strong>SAZU</strong>.Marijan DOVIĆ, 2004: Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana:Založba <strong>ZRC</strong>. (Studia litteraria).Alfonz GSPAN, 1974: Neznani Srečko Kosovel: neobjavljeno gradivo iz pesnikove<strong>za</strong>puščine ter kritične pripombe h Kosovelovemu Zbranemu delu in Integralom.Ljubljana: s. n.Graham HOUGH: The Modernist Lyric. V: Modernism: A Guide to EuropeanLiterature 1890-1930. Ur. M. Bradbury, J. McFarlane. London: Penguinbooks. 312–320.320.Janko KOS, 1983: Moderna misel in slovenska <strong>književnost</strong>. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva<strong>za</strong>ložba.Matevž KOS, 1997: Kako brati Kosovela? V: Srečko Kosovel, Izbrane pesmi.Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. (Kondor 280.) 129–167.167.ZD 1 = Srečko KOSOVEL, 1964: Zbrano delo 1. Druga izdaja. Ur. A. Ocvirk.Ljubljana: DZS.ZD 2 = Srečko KOSOVEL, 1974. Zbrano delo 2. Ur. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS.ZD 3/1 = Srečko KOSOVEL, 1977. Zbrano delo 3/1. Ur. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana:DZS.Srečko KOSOVEL, 1967: Integrali ‘26. Ur. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva<strong>za</strong>ložba.Erwin KÖSTLER, 1999: Srečko Kosovel: Klassiker ohne Werk. V: S. Kosovel,Integrale. Prev. E. Köstler. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava.189-198.Lado KRALJ, 1986: Kosovelov konstruktivizem: kritika pojma. Primerjalna<strong>književnost</strong> 9/2. 29–44.Ernő KULCSÁR-SZABÓ, 1999: Subjekt und Sprachlichkeit. V: Epoche - Text -Modalität: Diskurs der Moderne in der ungarischen Literaturwissenschaft.Hgg. E. Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó, M. Szegedy-Maszák. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 51–74.Michael LEVENSON, ur. 1999: The Cambridge Companion to Modernism.Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press.– – –, 1991: Introduction. V: The Cambridge Companion to Modernism. Ur. M.Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press. 1–8.James LONGENBACH, 1991: Modern Poetry. V: The Cambridge Companion toModernism. Ur. M. Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press. 100–129.129.Enrique MALLEN, 2004: On-line Picasso Project. http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/(datum dostopa 8. september 2004).Paul de MAN, 1997: Literarna zgodovina in literarna modernost. Slepota in uvid.Prev. Jelka Kernev Štrajn. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura. 143–164.Vanesa MATAJC, 2004: Literarnozgodovinski pojmovnik <strong>za</strong> literaturo moderne:revizija in nekaj predlogov. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 27/2. 61–81.69
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAAnton OCVIRK, 1946: Opombe. V: S. Kosovel, Zbrano delo 1. Prva izdaja. Ur. A.Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS. 403–442.– – –, 1964: Opombe. V: S. Kosovel, Zbrano delo 1. Ur. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS.413–505.– – –, 1967: Srečko Kosovel in konstruktivizem. V: S. Kosovel, Integrali ‘26. Ur.A.Ocvirk. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba. 5–112.– – –, 1974: Opombe. V: S. Kosovel, Zbrano delo 2. Ur.A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS.553-718.Boris PATERNU, 1989: Slovenski modernizem (Župančič – Kosovel – Kocbek).Obdobja in slogi v slovenski <strong>književnost</strong>i. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 145–162.Fernando PESSOA, 1997: Zadnja čarovnija: izbor. Prev. in spremna besedaC. Bergles. Ljubljana: Nova revija.Lawrence RAINEY, 1991: The Cultural Economy of Modernism. V: The CambridgeCompanion to Modernism. Ur. M. Levenson. ambridge: Cambridge univ.press. 33–69.Gerhard SCHAUMANN, 1997: Srečko Kosovels Europagedichte. Slavističnarevija 45/1-2. 59–66.Anton SLODNJAK, 1970: [Spremna beseda.] V: S. Kosovel, Lirika. Ljubljana:Mladinska knjiga. 99–117.Jola ŠKULJ, 1991: Paul de Man in pojem modernizem: koncepcija odprtosti, ki jehkrati celovitost. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 14/2. 41–49.– – –, 1995: Modernizem in modernost. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 18/2. 17–30.Attila TAMÁS, 1991: Überlegungen über Gültigkeit umfassender Stilkategorienund systematisierungsbegriffe im 20. Jahrhundert. V: Avantgarde undPostmoderne: Prozesse struktureller und funktioneller Veränderungen. Hgg.E. Fischer-Lichte, K. Schwind. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verl. 129–138.138.Steven TÖTÖSY, 1999: Configurations of Postcoloniality and National Identity:Inbetween Peripherality and Narratives of Change. The Comparatist: Journalof the Southern Comparative Literature Association (Virginia CommonwealthUniversity) 23. 89–110.Vera TROHA, 1988: O Kosovelu in italijanskem futurizmu. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>11/2. 1–14.Boštjan M. TURK, 1996: Slogovna razmerja Kosovelove lirike v luči modernističnihposkusov iz <strong>za</strong>dnje ustvarjalne etape. Slavistična revija 44/4. 367–392.392.Janez VREČKO, 1986: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda inzenitizem. Maribor: Obzorja.– – –, 1999: Labodovci, pilotovci, konstrukterji, konsisti in tankisti. Slavističnarevija 47/1. 49–67.Franc ZADRAVEC, 1986: Srečko Kosovel, 1904–1926. Koper: Lipa; Trst: ZTT.– – –, 1988: Srečko Kosovel (1904-1926) in ruski pesniški konstruktivizem –podobnosti in razločki. Slavistična revija 36/2. 195–215.Peter V. ZIMA, 2001: Das literarische Subjekt: Zwischen Spätmoderne undPostmoderne. Tübingen - Basel: Francke.– – –, 2003: Historische Perioden als Problematiken: Sozio-linguistischeSituationen, Soziolekte und Diskurse. V: Kako pisati literarno zgodovinodanes? Ur. D. Dolinar, M. Juvan. 275–286.70
• POVZETEKMARKO JUVAN: Kosovel in hibridnost modernizmaUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / literarna recepcija /modernizem / avantgarda / hibridnostZaradi anomalij v distribuciji in recepciji pesniških tekstov Srečka Kosovela sose o njem oblikovale kontradiktorne predstave (da je <strong>za</strong>pozneli dedič slovenskemoderne, ekspresionistični vizionar ali radikalni avantgardist), literarna zgodovinapa se je soočila s problemom, kako periodizirati njegov heterogeni opus. VKosovelovih poetikah (impresionistično-simbolistični, ekspresionistični, proletkultovski,avantgardistični in modernistični) se sicer očitno spreminja modelpesniške komunikacije: gre <strong>za</strong> preseganje estetske avtonomije in odpiranje pesniškegateksta <strong>za</strong> govorice, sporočila, tekste, teme in podobe sodobnega sveta.Toda Kosovel si je svojo pesniško identiteto do konca življenja vzpostavljalprav v hibridni koprezenci raznorodnih poetik, ki se je ne da vkleniti v tradicionalnoliterarnozgodovinsko naracijo o razvoju in prelomih. V tem vidimne samo značilno mladostniško iskanje ‘svojega izra<strong>za</strong>’, temveč pomembensimptom modernizma – modernistično večjezičnost, relativizem, ambivalenco,prezentizem in perspektivizem. Hibridnost stilov in poetik je ena izmed razpoznavnihpotez umetnosti modernizma, pojavlja se tudi znotraj opusov posameznihavtorjev.71
Kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija»odsotnega« avtorjaMarijan DovićInštitut <strong>za</strong> slovensko literaturo in literarne vede <strong>ZRC</strong> <strong>SAZU</strong>, LjubljanaPričujoči razmislek o Srečku Kosovelu, ki je nastal v letu stoletnice pesnikovegarojstva, bo vsaj na <strong>za</strong>četku deloval kot nekakšen pogled od zunaj,torej takšen, ki nima notranje zveze s Kosovelovo poezijo in se <strong>za</strong>to oddaljujeod razpravljanj, kakršna so v navadi, ko beseda teče o kakšnempomembnem mojstru lirike. Morda se bo na prvi pogled zdel celo »skrunilen«,pa se bo – tako vsaj upam – na koncu izka<strong>za</strong>lo, da je zunanjost tegarazmisleka le navidezna. Ukvarjal se bo namreč s problemoma avtorstvain kanoni<strong>za</strong>cije, ki sta ob Kosovelu nehote zbodla v oči in tudi sčasomanista postajala manj <strong>za</strong>nimiva, saj so se ob njima porajala vprašanja, ki ne<strong>za</strong>devajo le Kosovela, ampak odnose med avtorjem literature, literaturoin zunajliterarnimi konteksti nasploh. Teoretično ogrodje, s katerim si jemogoče pomagati pri tej analizi, je pove<strong>za</strong>no na eni strani s sodobno kritikoavtorstva, kot so jo razvili Barthes (1995), Foucault (1979) in ostali, nadrugi pa z modelom literarnega sistema in njegove evolucije, ki ga je razvilSchmidt s sodelavci v okviru empirične literarne znanosti (Schmidt 1980,1989), v veliki meri pa tudi s sodobnejšimi anali<strong>za</strong>mi literarnega kanona inprocesov kanoni<strong>za</strong>cije (Guillory 1983, Juvan 1994, Dović 2003).Dobro je znano, da se je Srečko Kosovel (1904–1926) v slovensko literarno,a tudi kulturno in politično zgodovino vpisal kot pesnik mnogihobrazov: kot melanholični pesnik Krasa, senzibilen pesnik z izrazito slutnjosmrti, kot socialno-revolucionarni vizionar in tudi kot pravi pesniškiavantgardist. Že kmalu po smrti je postal prava ikona, morda najpomembnejšepesniško ime 20. stoletja, nacionalni literarni klasik. Njegovo ime seje malodane preoblikovalo v blagovno znamko, po njem so poimenovališole, odlično je <strong>za</strong>stopan v antologijah poezije in literarnih zgodovinahter do današnjih dni podrobno predstavljen in razčlenjen v srednješolskihučnih programih. K statusu Kosovelove klasičnosti so bistveno prispevaliliterarni zgodovinarji, ki so mu posvečali obsežne študije in monografije.V letu stoletnice Kosovelovega rojstva je intenzivnost ukvarjanja z njimseveda še porasla – in konec koncev veljavo nekega avtorja v kanonu lahkopač merimo tudi s količino pozornosti, ki spremlja njegove jubileje. Vrstileso se okrogle mize, simpoziji, branja, proslave, na poti so nove znanstveneštudije, poljudni eseji, časopisni komentarji in posebne monografije oKosovelu in njegovem delu.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka73
KOSOVELOVA POETIKANedvomno je Kosovel torej klasična, malodane kultna figura slovenskekulturne zgodovine. In na kakšen način je danes dostopen? Potencialnisprejemnik Kosovelove poezije je soočen z goro različnih izdaj, kompilacijin izborov pesmi: od redkeje dostopnih predvojnih do malih broširanih,žepnih, takih z ornamenti ipd. Najbolj pa seveda tistega, ki hoče nadgraditishematično srednješolsko izkušnjo Kosovela, usmerjata referenčni izdajizbranih del (zbirka Zbrana dela slovenskih pesnikov in pisateljev) in sevedalegendarna ilustrirana izdaja tako imenovanih Integralov iz leta 1967.Ob tem si je mogoče <strong>za</strong>staviti nekaj <strong>za</strong>nimivih vprašanj, pove<strong>za</strong>nih s procesomkanoni<strong>za</strong>cije.Ker se podobna vprašanja pogosto odpirajo tudi pri drugih avtorjih, silahko ob primeru opusa Jane<strong>za</strong> Trdine ogledamo problem, ki postane priKosovelu še bistveno bolj <strong>za</strong>pleten. V nekem trenutku se jasno pokaže,kakšna zgodovinska konstrukcija – skorajda laž – je kanonizirani »Trdina«,kot nam je na voljo v zbirki Zbranih del, oziroma koliko truda je potrebnovložiti, da razbiramo prvotni kontekst, ki se nam trdovratno izmika.V Trdinovem primeru imamo v omenjeni zbirki dvanajst knjig z enotnimformatom, ve<strong>za</strong>vo, tipografijo itd., skratka opraviti imamo z neko celoto, kije urejena, homogena, sama po sebi nas navaja k misli o nekakšni sklenjenosti,celovitosti in notranji harmoniji avtorjevega opusa. V resnici pa zbirdvanajstih knjig prinaša popolnoma različna tekstovna gradiva: od relativnoneurejenih rokopisnih <strong>za</strong>piskov, ki očitno nikdar niso prišli v fazo <strong>za</strong>ključeneavtorske redakcije, do urejenih, relativno izpiljenih in <strong>za</strong>ključenihbesedil – kakršna je npr. večina Bajk in povesti o Gorjancih. Kljub temu, daso ta dejstva <strong>za</strong>dovoljivo pojasnjena v opombah, je očitno tole: pomešanaso besedila, pri katerih je intenca objave nesporna, in besedila, <strong>za</strong> kateraniti približno ni jasno, ali bi jih avtor želel objaviti v taki obliki; ter da jehkrati ta mešanost skrita v enotnosti izdaje.Pri Trdini je torej mogoče reči, da je že urednik prve izdaje Izbranegadela, tj. Etbin Kristan <strong>za</strong> <strong>za</strong>ložnika Schwentnerja, in še bolj urednik Zbranihdel Janez Logar, na neki način postal soavtor: sooblikoval je »Trdino« <strong>za</strong>prihodnje generacije. In vendar je Trdina dolgo živel (od 1830 do 1905)in aktivno usmerjal usodo svojih besedil, vplival je lahko, če na nič drugega,vsaj na to, ali jih je <strong>za</strong> življenja objavil ali ne. Popolnoma drugačeje pri Kosovelu. Kot je dobro znano, je Kosovel umrl v Tomaju leta 1926<strong>za</strong>radi meningitisa, star komaj 22 let. V kratkih letih aktivnega pesnjenjaje <strong>za</strong>pustil neverjetno obsežen, pa tudi osupljivo raznolik pesniški opus – vrokopisni <strong>za</strong>puščini v NUK-u je v 12 mapah ohranjenih prek 1000 pesmi.Zapustil je torej goro pesmi, a zelo malo podatkov o njih. Njegovo avtorskodelo se je končalo pri <strong>za</strong>pisu besedila, ni pa se moglo nadaljevati v selekcijo,piljenje, izbor, strategijo nastopa v javnosti, strategijo uveljavljanja medsodobniki v literarnem sistemu itd. – vsi ti postopki pa so vedno del življenjaliterarnega proizvajalca. Da je Kosovel lahko postal klasik, je moralnekdo to delo opraviti namesto njega.Tisti, ki so se tega lotevali, so se najprej soočili z dilemo, kako se spopastiz množico gradiva. Ko sem se na rokopisnem oddelku NUK-a prebijalskozi ta resnično impresivni material, sem ugotovil, da je vodil, s pomočjo74
Marijan Dović: Kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija »odsotnega« avtorjakaterih bi lahko razvrščali gradivo, izrazito malo. Težko bi utemeljeno urejaligradivo po tematskih sklopih, enako velja <strong>za</strong> načelo slogovne sorodnosti.Natančne časovne <strong>za</strong>porednosti nastajanja pesmi ni mogoče <strong>za</strong>nesljivougotoviti. Edina opozicija, ki bi lahko služila kot hierarhi<strong>za</strong>cijski znak, jepodpisano – nepodpisano; pa vendar ta ni in ne more biti <strong>za</strong>nesljiva, sajnikakor ni rečeno, da so pesmi, na katerih se je pesnik podpisal, v resniciboljše ali bolj dodelane, ali da bi jih pesnik prej objavil, če bi jih sploh itd.Ali se morda opreti na kvaliteto papirja? Eden od najboljših poznavalcevKosovelove <strong>za</strong>puščine, urednik Aleš Berger, meni, da je mogoče ugotoviti,kdaj gre <strong>za</strong> prepise oziroma čistopise, in da bi te pesmi lahko imeli <strong>za</strong> boljizdelane. Pa vendar niti to ne more biti <strong>za</strong>res <strong>za</strong>nesljivo vodilo. Opozicijanaslovljeno – nenaslovljeno ravno tako ne vodi nikamor. Z borimi nekajomembami načrtov in s pesmimi, objavljenimi <strong>za</strong> časa pesnikovega življenja,si ravno tako ni mogoče <strong>za</strong>dovoljivo pomagati.Prav<strong>za</strong>prav je ironično – ampak najbolj smiselno je rokopise razvrstitienostavno kar po abecedi, kot se nahajajo tudi v NUK-u. V trenutku, koželi kdor koli »nekaj« narediti s to <strong>za</strong>puščino, se kot edina smiselna možnostpokaže – konstrukcija, ki je lahko kvečjemu bolj ali manj o<strong>za</strong>veščena.Konstrukcija nekakšne kontinuitete, neke zgodbe. Na mesto avtorja morastopiti neki drug delovalnik v literarnem sistemu: bodisi drug avtor, bodisiurednik ali kritik. Vsak opravi svoje avtorsko delo, postane sodelavec,soavtor Kosovelu. Ocvirk s Kosovelom, Gspan s Kosovelom, Brumen sKosovelom … Pomen dejstva, da je Kosovel kot avtor na nek način odsoten,nedostopen, je prav<strong>za</strong>prav težko oceniti. A nikakor ga ne smemo <strong>za</strong>nemariti,nikdar ga ne smemo izgubiti iz vida, sicer vsako razpravljanje onjegovi poeziji, ki skuša preseči raven analize posameznih pesmi – in semsodijo problemi slogovnega razvoja, problemi modernizma, avantgardizmaitd. – vsako tako razpravljanje izgublja kredibilnost.Literarni kanonOb problemu avtorja, ki je na opisani način »odsoten«, nekako razločen odlastnega dela in podobe – ker sam ni mogel uresničiti vseh tistih dejanj, kijih od literarnega proizvajalca pričakujemo – pa se je vseeno tako rekoč zzlatimi črkami vpisal med »Velike avtorje«, je mogoče in potrebno premislititemelje poteze literarnega kanona in procese njegovega oblikovanja.Literarni kanon je gotovo eden pomembnejših v sodobni literarni teoriji inje aktualen tedaj, ko literature ne preučujemo zgolj kot literature, tj. kot celoteliterarnih besedil in avtorjev, ki jo pišejo, temveč v njenem širšem kulturnemin družbenem kontekstu. V tem kontekstu se vloga literature izkažekot mnogoplastna: literarni kanon ni le izbor najbolj cenjenih besedil v nekikulturni skupnosti, temveč širša celota, ki vključuje tudi imena kot »blagovneznamke« avtorjev, celoto pomembnejših interpretacij besedil, vsakdanjefraze, prikrojene iz kanoničnih besedil, popreproščene formule in citate»<strong>za</strong> vsakdanjo rabo«, tipična vrednotenja in podobno. Poenostavljeno rečeno,v literarni kanon ne sodijo le Kosovelova besedila, recimo najboljši75
KOSOVELOVA POETIKA»Integrali« ali »Konsi«, temveč tudi dejstvo, da gre <strong>za</strong> bolehnega pesnika,ki je umrl mlad, da gre <strong>za</strong> »pesnika Krasa«, pa celo zgodovina bralske recepcijenjegovih pesmi se vpisuje v to zgodbo. Literarni kanon je pomembendel »temeljev« neke skupnosti, tekstualna ba<strong>za</strong>, na podlagi katere nekadružba gradi svoj zgodovinski spomin, ga vzdržuje in reciklira; je nekakšnozrcalo, prek katere vzpostavlja svojo identiteto, kot poudarja Marko Juvan(1994). Prek tekstov, ki so del literarnega kanona, se merijo in legitimirajovsa pretekla, pa tudi aktualna kulturna dogajanja v tej skupnosti.Kanon je seveda močno selektiven in se s časom spreminja; predvsem<strong>za</strong>radi dotoka novih svežih avtorjev so kanonični izbori iz oddaljene preteklostivse bolj selektivni in shematični. Za svoje uspešno funkcioniranjev vlogi družbenega veziva kanon potrebuje učinkovite reprodukcijske mehanizme,med katerimi je najpomembnejši šolski sistem (Guillory 1983).Kosovel ostaja »Kosovel« torej predvsem <strong>za</strong>to, ker ga kot takega producirain reproducira šolski sistem – ta je v tem smislu <strong>za</strong>dnja postaja kanoni<strong>za</strong>cijein ultimativna točka potrditve veljave. Pred tem pa je moral kanoniziraniavtor čez nešteta sita in rešeta. Oglejmo si to potovanje, kot so ga temeljitoanalizirali predstavniki nizozemske empirične šole, npr. Kees van Rees(1989). Posameznika, ki ima ambicijo postati literarni avtor, najprej obdelujejouredniki, tako da se večini piscev sploh nikdar ne uspe dokopatido objave; ko kaj izide, se ga lotijo kritiki – pa še to le, če ima srečo – inče zbudi <strong>za</strong>dosten interes kritike in esejistike, ga postopoma v svoje znanstveneprimeže stisne literarna zgodovina, ga »očedi« in po potrebi tudiideološko prilagodi, asimilira. Šele <strong>za</strong> tem se avtor in tekst lahko pojavitav šolskih kurikulumih, berilih, obveznih čtivih in maturitetnih listah. To je»idealna« in poenostavljena slika tega procesa. Na te procese avtor lahkodo neke mere vpliva tudi sam, seveda če je živ. Že skozi prvi, uredniško-<strong>za</strong>ložniškifilter avtor mnogo lažje precedi tekst, če pozna tehnike lobiranja,se druži s pravimi ljudmi (uredniki, kritiki) ipd., enako velja <strong>za</strong> vse kasnejšefaze – podoba »dobrih avtorjev«, ki pride do faze znanstvene obdelave,je pogosto precej popačena, obremenjena s paratekstualnimi procesi, osebnimipoznanstvi in podobno.Kosovel je <strong>za</strong> življenja objavil malo, napisal pa neverjetno veliko besedil.Besedila je gotovo želel objaviti, vendar mu je <strong>za</strong> uresničitev prevratnih<strong>za</strong>misli o njihovi ustrezni distribuciji zmanjkalo časa – od vseh načrtovmu je uspelo deloma uresničiti le dijaško <strong>za</strong>misel glasila, Lepo Vido, in paliterarno-dramatični krožek, poimenovan po Ivanu Cankarju; s kolegi pa seje <strong>za</strong> nekaj mesecev dokopal tudi do uredništva revije Mladina. Samostojnapesniška zbirka, revija Konstrukter in knjižna zbirka so ostale le neuresničenevizije. Stanje po Kosovelovi smrti je bilo nenavadno: sodobniki soimeli nepregledno morje rokopisov in skoraj nobene hierarhije med njimi;skoraj nobenega načrta ali vsaj osnutka o zgradbi bodočih pesniških zbirk,ki jih je Kosovel gotovo imel v mislih.76
Marijan Dović: Kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija »odsotnega« avtorjaKonstruiranje klasikaIn tu se <strong>za</strong>čenja zgodba o Kosovelu, ki nima prave zveze s pokojnikom. Dase je rokopisov sploh kdo lotil, imajo <strong>za</strong>slugo njegovi prijatelji – kaj lahkobi namreč ta poezija ostala zgodba iz predala oz. sploh neobstoječa zgodba.Kosovelova pot med klasike je polna arbitrarnih odločitev, bolj ali manjupravičenih uredniških presoj in vrtanja po rokopisih, pa tudi zgodovinaspecifične, celo kontradiktorne recepcije. Vse to velja že <strong>za</strong> prvi skromenizbor pesmi iz leta 1927, ki je izšel leto dni po pesnikovi smrti. Pesmi jeizbral Alfonz Gspan, a tako, da je v izbor uvrstil pretežno tradicionalnepesmi. Enako je v izboru iz leta 1931 ravnal utemeljitelj slovenske komparativistikein znanstvenik Anton Ocvirk, mlajši Kosovelov sodobnik. PravOcvirk je temeljna figura, pove<strong>za</strong>na s tem, čemur lahko rečemo »konstruiranje«kanoničnega Kosovela. Ocvirk je namreč prevzel večino rokopisovin po vojni je bil Kosovelov opus kot eden prvih potrjen <strong>za</strong> izdajo v okviruambiciozne zbirke Zbranih del slovenskih pesnikov in pisateljev. Ocvirkje leta 1946 izdal prvo knjigo Kosovelovih Zbranih del. Vanjo je vključilprecej pesmi, vendar ne tistih najradikalnejših, in sicer – kot sam kasnejepojasnjuje – <strong>za</strong>to, ker so se mu slednje zdele fragmentarne, nedokončane;zdelo se mu je, kot da so to šele nekakšni <strong>za</strong>snutki, ki jih je v ustvarjalnivročici Kosovel metal na papir, ne pa prave, estetsko dodelane pesmi. Je paOcvirk že v prvo izdajo uvrstil tudi nekaj radikalnejših »Konsov«.Toda prava zgodba se tu šele <strong>za</strong>čenja. V <strong>za</strong>puščini je namreč ostalo šemnogo pesmi, predvsem tiste, ki jih je danes mogoče označiti <strong>za</strong> najboljradikalne. Zato je bila potrebna revizija Zbranih del iz leta 1946. Nastalaje nova verzija prve knjige (1964), leta 1974 pa je izšla še druga knjiga, kije vključila tudi t. i. Integrale. Te radikalne pesmi, ki so dobile uredniškinaslov Integrali, so prvič izšle že leta 1967, in tudi to prestižno izdajo jepripravil Anton Ocvirk, grafično opremil pa Jože Brumen. V javnosti jeknjiga seveda delovala kot šok: kje so bile doslej »najboljše« pesmi tegaslovenskega modernista in avantgardista? Prst se je naperil v Ocvirka, kije dolga leta pri sebi »<strong>za</strong>drževal« rokopise. Toda ta prst je na neki načinzgrešil poanto: ker Kosovel ni živel in ni <strong>za</strong>pustil načrtov, so bili izborigradiv in celo naslovi zbirk ali sklopov in skratka vsi uredniški posegi takoali tako docela arbitrarni. To pa pomeni, da je vsak urednik vedno izbiralpo lastni presoji in v skladu s svojim okusom in estetskimi vrednotami;lahko bi rekli, da je konstruiral, celo »proizvajal« svojega Kosovela. In tušele lahko odgovorimo na izhodiščno vprašanje, kako je Kosovel lahkopostal pesnik tako različnih obrazov: njegov heterogeni opus, srkajoč vplivenajrazličnejših literarnih smeri in gibanj, je omogočal tudi diametralnorazlične konstelacije estetskih in ideoloških preferenc. Zato je treba zgodovinoKosovelove recepcije in kanoni<strong>za</strong>cije brati kot zgodovino uredniškihprisvajanj in prikrajanj: pred drugo svetovno vojno je bil Kosovel narodnipesnik, ki je imaginarij Krasa postavil kot »slovenski imaginarij« – in to včasu, ko je bil Tomaj globoko v Italiji in je Kosovel študiral v drugi državi.Povojni Kosovel je lahko privzel oblasti všečen obraz revolucionarnegasocialista in simpatizerja delavstva. V dobi, ko so se pri nas razmahnile77
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAumetniške (neo)avantgarde, pa se je izka<strong>za</strong>lo, da je Kosovel prav<strong>za</strong>pravizjemno moderen pesnik in avantgardist; ugotovljene so bile paralele s futuristi,konstruktivisti, zenitisti ipd. Avantgardni Kosovel, <strong>za</strong> katerega je<strong>za</strong>nimanje utiral tudi francoski pesnik Marc Alyn, je torej pesnik doceladrugačnega obra<strong>za</strong>, kot je bil nekoč samotni pesnik Krasa.Ravno z izdajo Integralov leta 1967 so slovenske neoavantgarde dobilelegitimnost in postale del neke zgodovinske kontinuitete. Toda knjigaIntegralov sama po sebi ni nekakšna nedolžna <strong>za</strong>mudniška tvorba: spet gre<strong>za</strong> arbitraren izbor z arbitrarnim in morda celo ponesrečenim naslovom in ssočasno grafično opremo, ki nikakor ni nevtralna, ampak Kosovela izrazitoasociativno postavlja v avantgardistični kontekst dobe, v kateri je knjigaizšla. V tem smislu je zgodba z Integrali pove<strong>za</strong>na s časovno specifičnointerpretacijo, ki je ideološko motivirana. S tega stališča je pogosto tematiziranovprašanje zgodovinske avantgarde v zvezi s Kosovelom mogočena nek način videti kot umetno vprašanje, ki ga je <strong>za</strong> na<strong>za</strong>j sprožila literarnazgodovina, da bi dokazovala sinhronost slovenskih literarnih gibanjz Evropo – in tudi tu je morda treba iskati enega od vzrokov <strong>za</strong> posebnostipri kanoni<strong>za</strong>ciji Kosovela.SklepKo skušamo nekako povzeti tisto, kar se nam tu zdi pomembno, nam je lahkov oporo tudi sodobna empirična oziroma sistemska teorija literature S. J.Schmidta in drugih. V sistemskoteoretični shemi je namreč avtor kot literarniproizvajalec neločljivo pove<strong>za</strong>n z drugimi vlogami v literarnem sistemu:vlogo posrednika, sprejemnika in obdelovalca. Ravno Kosovelov primerje s tega vidika posebej <strong>za</strong>nimiv, saj kot literarni proizvajalce Kosovelni dejavno posegal v sistemske odnose oziroma je vpliv teh posegov (redkeobjave, uredništva, grupiranje), ki jih je utegnil izvršiti v kratkem časusvojega življenja, <strong>za</strong>nemarljiv v primerjavi s tem, kar so <strong>za</strong> »Kosovela«storili tisti, ki so prevzeli nase vloge, ki jih v običajnih okoliščinah vsajdelom prevzema, gotovo pa vsaj nadzira in usmerja, sam literarni proizvajalec.Zato je mogoče trditi, da je kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija Kosovela, ki danes nespornovelja ne le <strong>za</strong> enega najboljših slovenskih pesnikov, temveč tudi <strong>za</strong>najradikalnejšega predstavnika zgodovinske avantgarde, potekala docela»mimo« njega. Kot kanonični avtor (in hkrati tudi ustrezen tip slovenskegapesnika – s táko življenjsko usodo, ki jo najdemo že v modelu »cukrarne«),je Kosovel v celoti konstruiran, saj sam ni imel na svojo kulturno usodonobenega vpliva.Seveda s tem ni rečeno, da drugi avtorji lahko bistveno vplivajo na kanoni<strong>za</strong>cijo:nasprotno, ti procesi so večinoma posmrtni, dokončno podobopa jim krojijo armade institucij, vključenih v relativno kompleksno dogajanje.Kosovel je po smrti zmagovito vstopil v literarno areno, a pri tem soodločilno vlogo odigrali drugi akterji v literarnem sistemu, <strong>za</strong>to se zdi šeposebej <strong>za</strong>nimiv <strong>za</strong> preučevanje različnih procesov v literarnem sistemuin vloge avtorja v njih. Po drugi strani lahko razumemo naše ugotovitve78
Marijan Dović: Kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija »odsotnega« avtorjav zvezi s Kosovelom tudi v kontekstu sodobne kritike tega, kar Barthesimenuje »tiranija avtorja« oziroma kot prispevek k razumevanju nastajanja»avtorske funkcije« (Foucault 1979). V številnih študijah se je že večkratizka<strong>za</strong>la historično-kontingenčna narava individualnega avtorstva, kije lahko vzniknilo v posebnih družbenih pogojih, se pravno kodificiralo zreguliranjem avtorskih pravic ter se utemeljilo z romantično retoriko navdahnjenegagenija (Bennet 2005). »Tiranija avtorja« resda še vedno obvladujevečino družbenih diskurzov, pove<strong>za</strong>nih z literaturo – <strong>za</strong>ložniki, revije,kritiki, državne institucije, pa tudi pomemben segment tradicionalneliterarne vede s pridom izkoriščajo mitizirane razsežnosti Avtorja – toda nateoretični ravni je že močno načeta. S tega gledišča se ne zdi več spornopriznati, da Kosovel kot kanonični avtor ni identičen s historično osebo,temveč je rezultat »avtorske koprodukcije«, v katero sta vključena tudi mašinerijaliterarnega sistema in znanstveno opazovanje literature. Ne enegane drugega ne bi smeli <strong>za</strong>nemariti, če želimo natančneje razumeti, kaj se<strong>za</strong>res dogaja v procesu družbene »proizvodnje« avtorja.LiteraturaRoland Barthes: Smrt avtorja. V: Sodobna literarna teorija. Ljubljana: Krtina,1995, str. 19–24.Andrew Bennet: The Author. London, New York: Routledge, 2005.Marijan Dović: Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba<strong>ZRC</strong>, 2004.Marijan Dović: Sodobni pogledi na literarni kanon in njegovo družbeno vlogo.Dialogi 2003, št. 1–2, str. 18–44.Michel Foucault: What Is an Author? V: Textual strategies. Perspectives inpost-structuralist criticism. (Ur. Josué V. Harari.) Ithaca, New York. CornellUniversity Press, 1979, str. 141–160.Alfonz Gspan: Neznani Srečko Kosovel: neobjavljeno gradivo iz pesnikove <strong>za</strong>puščineter kritične pripombe h Kosovelovemu Zbranemu delu in Integralom.Ljubljana: s. n., 1974. (Posebni odtis iz revije Prostor in čas št. 8–12, 1973.)John Guillory: Cultural Capital. The Problem of Literary Canon Formation.Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1983.Marko Juvan: Slovenski Parnasi in Eliziji: Literarni kanon in njegove uprizoritve.Individualni in generacijski ustvarjalni ritmi. (Obdobja 14). Ljubljana:Filozofska fakulteta, 1994.Marko Juvan: Srečko Kosovel med moderno, avantgardo in modernizmom. V:Literarni izzivi. Ljubljana – Maribor: <strong>SAZU</strong> – Pedagoška fakulteta, 2003, str.106–122.Janko Kos: Slovenska literatura in zgodovinska avantgarda. Slavistična revija1986, št. 3, str. 247–258.Matevž Kos: Kako brati Kosovela? V: Srečko Kosovel: Izbrane pesmi. Ljubljana:Mladinska knjiga, 1997.Srečko Kosovel: Integrali 1926. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba, 1967.Srečko Kosovel: Zbrano delo I/1, I, II, III/1, III/2. Ur. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana:DZS, 1946–1977.79
KOSOVELOVA POETIKASrečko Kosovel: Ikarjev sen. Dokumenti, rokopisi, pričevanja. Ur. Aleš Berger,Ludwig Hartinger. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2004.Lado Kralj: Kosovelov konstruktivizem: kritika pojma. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>1986, št. 2, str. 29–44.Anton Ocvirk: Srečko Kosovel in konstruktivizem. V: Srečko Kosovel: Integrali1926. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba, 1984.Kees van Rees: The Institutional Foundation of a Critic’s Connoisseurship. Poetics18. št. 1–2, 1989, str. 179–198.Siegfried J. Schmidt: Grundriss der Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Band1&2. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1980.Siegfried J. Schmidt: Die Selbstorganisation des Sozialsystems Literatur im 18.Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989.Janez Vrečko: Labodovci, pilotovci, konstrukterji, konsisti in tankisti. Slavističnarevija 1999 št. 1, str. 49–68.Vera Troha: O Kosovelu in italijanskem futurizmu. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>1988, št. 2, str. 1–14.Franc Zadravec: Srečko Kosovel (1904–1926) in ruski pesniški konstruktivizem– podobnosti in razločki. Slavistična revija 1988, št. 1–4, str. 195–216.• POVZETEKUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / literarna recepcija /kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija / literarni sistemV sistemskoteoretični shemi je avtor kot literarni proizvajalec neločljivo pove<strong>za</strong>nz drugimi vlogami v literarnem sistemu: vlogo posrednika, sprejemnikain obdelovalca. Kosovelov primer se zdi s tega vidika posebej <strong>za</strong>nimiv, saj kotliterarni proizvajalce Kosovel ni dejavno posegal v sistemske odnose oziromaje vpliv teh posegov (redke objave, uredništva, grupiranje), ki jih je utegnilizvršiti v kratkem času svojega življenja, <strong>za</strong>nemarljiv v primerjavi s tem, karso <strong>za</strong> »Kosovela« storili tisti, ki so prevzeli nase vloge, ki jih v običajnih okoliščinahvsaj delom prevzema, gotovo pa vsaj nadzira in usmerja, sam literarniproizvajalec. Zato je mogoče trditi, da je kanoni<strong>za</strong>cija Kosovela, ki danes nespornovelja ne le <strong>za</strong> enega najboljših slovenskih pesnikov, temveč tudi <strong>za</strong> najradikalnejšegapredstavnika zgodovinske avantgarde, potekala docela »mimo«njega. Kosovel je posmrtno zmagovito vstopil v literarno areno, a pri tem soodločilno vlogo odigrali drugi akterji v literarnem sistemu, saj natančnejšihnačrtov, kaj in kako storiti z obsežno in hierarhično neurejeno <strong>za</strong>puščino, ni<strong>za</strong>pustil. Zato se zdi še posebej <strong>za</strong>nimiv <strong>za</strong> preučevanje različnih procesov vliterarnem sistemu in vloge avtorja v njih. Hkrati pa je mogoče trditi, da večinadosedanjih obravnav Kosovela in njegovega dela spregleda ta pomemben kontekstin obravnava »Kosovela« kot nekaj vnaprej danega in razpoložljivega,kar zlahka vodi k poenostavitvam.80
KOSOVEL IN NIHILIZEM:POSKUSKONSTRUKTIVNE DESTRUKCIJEMatevž KosFilozofska fakulteta, LjubljanaSrečko Kosovel danes stoji trdno v kanonu slovenske literature, kljub svojiklasičnosti pa sproža najrazličnejše, tudi ideološko motivirane polemike inz njimi neločljivo pove<strong>za</strong>n boj interpretacij – te se zvečine lomijo na hrbtunjegovega obsežnega pesniškega opusa.* Slovenci imamo s Kosovelomtežave še danes, osemdeset let po pesnikovi smrti. Eden <strong>za</strong>dnjih takšnih»simptomov« je bilo dogajanje ob peti obletnici osamosvojitve Slovenije26. junija 1996, ko je na Trgu republike v slovenski prestolnici potekaladržavna slovesnost. Njen uradni naslov se je glasil Kons. 5 – Slavolok petiobletnici osamosvojitve Republike Slovenije. Kons. 5 je sicer naslov enenajbolj znanih Kosovelovih pesemskih »konstrukcij«, avtorji proslave paso si njen naslov sposodili v bolj »simboličnem« smislu, češ da gre <strong>za</strong> petoobletnico konstituiranja države. Kons. 5 med proslavo nato ni bil neposrednouporabljen. Za izstop nekaterih pomembnih političnih mož iz častnegaodbora prireditve, med njimi tudi ministra <strong>za</strong> kulturo, je bila dovoljže uporaba (po njihovem prepričanju zloraba) naslova pesmi. Pri tem pa nibil toliko moteč naslov kot tisto, kar se <strong>za</strong> njim, naj bo izgovorjeno ali ne,skriva. To pa je seveda sama pesem. Glasi se takole (ZD II: 23):Gnoj je zlatoin zlato je gnoj.Oboje = 00 = ∞A B
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAKons. 5 na prvi pogled ni<strong>za</strong> raznorodne, nenavadne, ne posebno »lirične«elemente, kot so matematični znaki in simboli ali pa zvočni posnetek oslovegariganja, s katerim se pesem pomenljivo glasno sklene. Malce nenavadno,na prvi pogled trivialno, pa vendarle: oslovo riganje pri Kosovelu je najbržv zvezi z Nietzschejem. Najverjetnejši izvir »oslovske« skovanke je namrečNietzschejeva knjiga Tako je govoril Zaratustra – Kosovel jo je bral in, kotje dokumentirano, celo priporočal v branje. »I, A« se v Nietzschejevi knjigiTako je govoril Zaratustra pojavi kar nekajkrat, ima pa podobno – ironičnosubverzivno,tudi norčavo – funkcijo kot pri Kosovelu.Kons. 5 je obenem pesem, katere branje skorajda <strong>za</strong>hteva poznavanjenekaterih okoliščin, v katerih je nastala, pa tudi širšega kontekstaKosovelovega pesnjenja. Urednik Anton Ocvirk v opombah v Zbranemdelu opo<strong>za</strong>rja zlasti na kmetijski priročnik Gnoj je zlato, ki je Kosovelumed bivanjem v Tomaju po naključju prišel v roke in nato neposrednospodbudil nastanek pesmi. Nič manj pomemben ni Kosovelov dnevniški<strong>za</strong>pis iz leta 1925, ki je <strong>za</strong>snova <strong>za</strong> Kons. 5: »Zlata mrzlica. / Ljudje imajozlato mrzlico. Kapitalizem / Gnoj je zlato. / Zlato je gnoj, ker ga <strong>za</strong> to uporabljajo/ Kultura = dekla / dekla kapitala.« (ZD III: 688)S pritegnitvijo teh »zunajpesemskih«, kon-tekstualnih okoliščin postajaena izmed temeljnih intenc pesmi Kons. 5 razvidnejša. Gre predvsem <strong>za</strong>njeno proti-kapitalistično ost, vendar – in to velja poudariti – nikakor ne nanačin transparentne ideološke agitacije. Kons. 5, skupaj z nekaterimi drugimitovrstno naravnanimi Kosovelovimi teksti, to ost ubeseduje posredno:privajeno, udomačeno podobo »meščanskega«, »buržoaznega« sveta razstavlja,de-harmonizira in jo tako <strong>za</strong>risuje kot izrazito nestabilno, dinamičnostrukturo, ki sama – takšna, kakršna pač je – kliče po radikalni spremembi.Oslovo riganje na koncu pesmi Kons. 5 ne priča samo o nekakšni norčavostiin ironično-parodični distanciranosti, temveč obstoječemu zgodovinskemusvetu izreka temeljno ne<strong>za</strong>upnico.Tu pa se odpira nekaj <strong>za</strong>nimivih vprašanj. Na primer: katera je tistainstanca, mesto, s katerega Kosovelova poezija nekemu zgodovinskemusvetu – slovenski družbi, pa tudi Evropi dvajsetih let 20. stoletja – izreka temeljnone<strong>za</strong>upnico? Zakaj je ravno poezija medij izrekanja te ne<strong>za</strong>upnice?Kateri so tisti ideali, v imenu katerih Kosovelova pesem protestira? Semsodi, konec koncev, še vprašanje, kaj pomeni to, da Kosovelova pesemprotestira, da očitno sama ima neke ideale in podobno – kaj vse to pomeni<strong>za</strong> modernistično strukturo Kosovelove poezije? Ne na<strong>za</strong>dnje se lahkovprašamo tudi, kaj je s temi ideali, če na njih pogledamo iz perspektiveNietzschejeve filozofije, na primer v luči <strong>za</strong>hteve po prevrednotenju vsehvrednot ali pa v luči kritike vseh tako imenovanih modernih idej?Kot lahko razberemo iz številnih Kosovelovih esejističnih sestavkov,posebno vlogo pri slovesu od starega sveta in vzpostavitvi novega pripisujepesniški besedi, literaturi oziroma kar celotni kulturi. Kosovel svojegapesništva in umetnosti nasploh nikakor ne razume kot nekakšno izoliranodejavnost, ki bi bila zgolj estetska in v tem smislu »avtonomna«. Kons.5 in podobni Kosovelovi, pogojno rečeno, modernistični teksti bralcu, kijih v<strong>za</strong>me v roke, morda sicer vzbujajo estetsko »avtonomističen«, »ne-82
MATEVŽ KOS: KOSOVEL IN NIHILIZEM: POSKUS KONSTRUKTIVNE DESTRUKCIJEmimetičen« vtis – skorajda v smislu (ultra)modernistične poetike in njenih<strong>za</strong>htev po »izgonu smisla« iz poezije, ki so bile na Slovenskem popularneravno v času prvega izida Integralov, tj. v drugi polovici šestdesetih let20. stoletja. Kontekst pesmi Kons. 5, na katerega sem že opozoril, pa tudiKosovelove besede o »kulturnem gibanju«, v osrčje katerega postavlja pesniškobesedo, pričajo o nečem drugem.Najprej se moramo ustaviti ob Kosovelovem odnosu do slovenske pesnišketradicije. Kosovel je ne razume kot nečesa, kar sodi v muzej in karje, v avantgardističi maniri (najbolj bombastično pri »antipasatizmu« futuristov),treba preseči in <strong>za</strong>vreči. Ravno nasprotno: Kosovel ima samegasebe <strong>za</strong> dediča in nadaljevalca slovenskega literarnega izročila. Se pravi, dasvoje pisanje utemeljuje v pri<strong>za</strong>devanjih in stremljenjih starejših predhodnikov.V tej Zgodbi pa izpostavljeno, iniciacijsko mesto pripada FrancetuPrešernu, središču slovenskega pesniškega kanona.A rad bi eno, da v tej temni dobi, ko smo po<strong>za</strong>bili, čemu živimo, da v<strong>za</strong>memov roke njegove poezije in da poizkušamo dobiti v njih one moči,ki pomaga v trpljenju in v borbi, ki daje človeku vero v življenje, ki kažeživljenju cilj. Kajti posebna lastnost globokih in lepih duš je, da pokažejosvoje življenje, da pokažejo edino pot, ki jo mora hoditi duša: k Lepoti. Intaka duša je Prešeren. (ZD III: 122)Kosovelo razmišljanje je ponekod obarvano ničejansko. Ta vtis podkrepljuješe omenjanje Nietzscheja v Kosovelovih spisih. Leta 1923 jeočitno bral Nietzschejevo knjigo Tako je govoril Zaratustra, saj jo v temčasu kar nekajkrat omenja, med drugim v svoji korespondenci (ZD III: 382,481). Kosovel se sklicuje na Nietzscheja kot na nekakšno avtoriteto, če nekar duhovnega učitelja. Vendar pa v tem kontekstu Kosovel govori tudi osvojem pri<strong>za</strong>devanju, še več, govori, recimo, o »žrtvovanju <strong>za</strong> Lepoto inResnico«. Tudi v besedilu z naslovom Stojimo, prav tako leta 1923, omenjaNietzscheja, takoj nato pa govori o »borbi <strong>za</strong> človeka in človeštvo«, oSlovanih, ki bodo »trudnega evropskega človeka« odrešili »s svojo velikovoljo po življenju, s svojo sočno barbarsko veselo življenja željnostjo« (ZDIII: 42). Istega leta je Kosovel v neki oceni <strong>za</strong>pisal tudi tole: »Ako hočečlovek živeti […] mora stopiti med okolico. To ni človek gnile družbe, tudine človek najidealnejše kolektivnosti, to je človek-bog, Nietzschejev nadčlovek.Z njim vstane in pade svet.« (ZD III: 236)V dnevniškem <strong>za</strong>pisu iz tega obdobja pa je Kosovel še precej bolj neposreden:»Kadar mi je najgrenkejše pri srcu berem Nietzscheja« (ZD III:703).Vendar je tu treba takoj, že kar vnaprej pripomniti, da Kosovel sicer dialogizira,včasih nemara koketira z Nietzschejem, vendar ga razume dokajpo svoje. Z eno besedo: daleč je od radikalnosti in še manj konsekventnostiizvorne Nietzschejeve misli. Kosovel namreč, podobno kot pred njimže Ivan Cankar (gl. Kos 2003: 147–180), tako voljo kot moč humanizira,in zgolj v tem, izrazito humanističnem kontekstu ju razume kot sredstvočloveške (individualne in kolektivne) emancipacije. Podobno velja tudi <strong>za</strong>pogosta Kosovelova gesla o človečanstvu, novem človeku, pravici, novi83
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAdružbi, novem etosu in podobno, v katerih sicer nemalokrat odmevajo programskanačela tako imenovanega »mesijanskega ekspresionizma«.Vse te – po Nietzscheju izrazite »moderne« oziroma »dekadentne«– ideje pa znotraj Kosovelovega horizonta nimajo globlje vsebinske zvezez Nietzschejevo perspektivo. Natančneje rečeno, s perspektivizmom priNietzscheju, kar pomeni: gledati vse bivajoče v luči volje do moči in večnegavračanja enakega, s tem pa tudi »onkraj dobrega in zlega«. V perspektivizmu,kot ga pojmuje Nietzsche, namreč ne gre <strong>za</strong> to, da bi gledalina življenje iz perspektive razvoja v smislu eshatološkega napredovanjak nekemu Cilju, še najmanj v luči kakšnega izmed etičnih postulatov.Nietzsche, zgoščeno povedano, izhaja iz volje do moči kot temeljnega»ustroja« narave, »gona« bivajočega – kot »večnega vračanja enakega«.Tisto, kar se vrača vedno znova, je volja do moči kot sebe hoteča moč (gl.mdr. Nietzsche 1991: 577–578).Pesništvo in umetnost nasploh <strong>za</strong> Kosovela ni utelešenje prekipevajočemoči in volje do življenja v Nietzschejevem smislu, temveč moč, ki jevnaprej omejena. Drugače povedano: moč, ki jo omenja in na katero staviKosovel, ni moč, ki bi hotela samo sebe, ni moč, ki bi bila vrhovni principživljenja. Kosovel se omejuje na toliko moči, kolikor je je potrebno, daje trpljenje še mogoče nekako prenesti in ga nato osmisliti z angažmajemznotraj gibanja <strong>za</strong> uresničitev kakšne izmed človečanskih idej. Zato ta močtudi ne more biti ekspanzionistična, obrnjena navzven, temveč nasprotno.Meje njenega sveta, če uporabim sintagmo, ki je Kosovel bržkone ne uporabljapo naključju, so meje lepe duše. Svet, v katerem prebiva lepa dušain v katerem se počuti kot doma, pa je poezija. Cilj pesniške lepe duše je»hoja k Lepoti«.Ob tem pa moram dodati še to, da so izhodišča Kosovelove »poetike«,kakor jih lahko razberemo iz njegovih diskurzivnih besedil, heterogena,nemalokrat protislovna. Izpostavljena Kosovelova beseda <strong>za</strong> resnico pesništvaje sicer Lepota, vendar je, po Cankarjevem zgledu, ne razume v smisluharmonije kot ene izmed kategorij »klasične« estetike. Pa tudi ne larpurlartističnooziroma esteticistično. Značilen je denimo Kosovelov osnutek izleta 1925 <strong>za</strong> spis Sodobno evropsko življenje in umetnost, ki ga je imel tedajv načrtih. Med drugim govori o tem, da umetnost… ni več kakor nekateri katederski esteti mislijo samo estetični problem,ampak estetični, etični, socijalni, religiozni, revolucijonarni, skratka življenjskiproblem. […] Kajti le umetnik, ki je izstopil iz močvirja sodobnedružbe in stopil v novo družbo, ki jo je <strong>za</strong>čutil sam, le ta je novi duhovnikresnice, pravice, človečanstva in dobrote. (ZD III: 650)Temelj temu prenovljenju, v nadaljevanju <strong>za</strong>trjuje Kosovel, je »etičnarevolucija«: »Mi hočemo dejanja. In brez etične revolucije ni mogoče preitik dejanju.« (ZD III: 651)V <strong>za</strong>dnjem obdobju Kosovelovega življenja je takšno prepričanje dobilokonkretnejšo, socialno-politično vsebino. Svoja stališča je najizrazitejerazložil v predavanju Umetnost in proletarec, ki ga je imel konec februarja1926, to je tri mesece pred smrtjo, v Zagorju. Kosovel tu razpravlja o sodo-84
MATEVŽ KOS: KOSOVEL IN NIHILIZEM: POSKUS KONSTRUKTIVNE DESTRUKCIJEbnem umetniku in nujnosti njegove vključitve v gibanje, ki se »bori z razrednimbojem <strong>za</strong> brezrazredno družbo«. Subjekt tega gibanja je proletariat,Kosovelovo razmišljanje gre v tej smeri, da je emancipacija proletariata, čerečemo z Marxom, pogoj <strong>za</strong> emancipacijo vsega človeštva. 1 UdejanjenjePravice bo prineslo »novo, proletarsko, človečansko kulturo«. Zato je,sklepa Kosovel, »proletarska kultura nujnost, brez katere proletariat svojenaloge ne more rešiti« (ZD III/3: 29).Tu se z vso ostrino <strong>za</strong>stavlja vprašanje, ki bi mu lahko rekli kar »vprašanjepoezije«. Namreč: kako na takšni podlagi naravnati pesniško besedo,da bo ustre<strong>za</strong>la resnici nove dobe? Vsej borbeno aktivistični programatikinavkljub je namreč pesniška beseda pri Kosovelu predvsem beseda hrepenenja.Hrepenenje pa je po svojem temelju brez-ciljno in odprto, <strong>za</strong>devasrca, duše in nedoločljive bolesti, če uporabim te Kosovelove besede, ki jihsrečamo v vseh »razvojnih etapah« in »žanrih« njegovega pisanja.Ali je <strong>za</strong>peljivost siren nove družbe kot eshatološkega projekta – pri njegovemudejanjenju Kosovel podeljuje literaturi inciacijsko vlogo – tolikšna,da bi lahko postavila pod vprašaj tudi vsa dotedanja Kosovelova pesniškapri<strong>za</strong>devanja? Zanje so namreč konstitutivni ravno iskanje, »ontološka« negotovost,notranja protislovnost, nihanje med solipsizmom in aktivizmom,temu ustrezno konstantno krizno stanje, predvsem pa skupni imenovalecKosovelovega pesnjenja ostaja elementarni lirizem »lepe duše«. Ta – ne gledena tehnopoetske, tematskovsebinske in druge metamorfoze Kosovelovepoezije – ostaja njegova določujoča podlaga (prim. Kos 1997).Ob teh dilemah moram spet opozoriti na nekaj formulacij iz Kosovelovekorespondence. Gre <strong>za</strong> stavke, ki jih je Kosovel <strong>za</strong>pisal poleti 1925 v pismuFanici Obidovi: pesnik govori o velikem prevratu, sredi katerega je, natoo ustvarjalni nervoznosti, ki je del tega prevrata, obenem pa je ta nervoznostširši, že kar metafizičen pojem: »Nervozen človek je medij kozmičnihtragedij.«Za nas pa je posebej <strong>za</strong>nimiv tudi Kosovelov stavek, ki govori o tem,da mora človek »preko mostu nihilizma na pozitivno stran« (ZD III: 397–398).Ta stavek je prav<strong>za</strong>prav malce drugačna različica misli, ki jo lahko odkrijemov enem izmed Kosovelovih dnevniških <strong>za</strong>pisov iz tega obdobja:»Skozi ničišče negativizma bo potreba iti, da pridemo res na pravo konstruktivnopot.« (ZD III: 700)Sicer pa je v Kosovelovem opusu raztreseno še nekaj podobnih formulacij.V enem izmed pisem, prav tako Fanici Obidovi, je <strong>za</strong>pisal denimo tole:»Iz absolutne negacije, nihilizma, sem polagoma stopil z <strong>za</strong>prtimi očmi napozitivno stran.« (ZD III/2: 400)1Pa tudi prvi pogoj emancipacije malih – po Marxu (in Heglu) »nezgodovinskih«– narodov. Kosovelova vizija »proletarske revolucije« namreč ni anacionalna vsmislu »svetovne revolucije« in z njo pove<strong>za</strong>nega »odmiranja narodov«. Dovoljpomenljiv je Kosovelov dnevniški <strong>za</strong>pis iz leta 1924: »Potom socijalizma revolucijedo svobode narodov.« (ZD III: 624) Podobno na drugem mestu: »Narodje nad državo, ker je narod organičen, naturen in upravičen, a država mehaničen,politično gospodarski faktor.« (ZD III: 659)85
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAKosovel v tem pismu pojasnjuje svoje aktualne pesniške dileme in obenemnapoveduje, kaj in kako bo z njegovo poezijo. Ob takšnih in drugačnihKosovelovih samooznakah in pojasnilih moramo biti pozorni na večstvari. Najprej na to, da tisto, kar označujejo Kosovelove besede o »pravikonstruktivni poti« oziroma o »pozitivni strani«, seveda ni zgolj nekakšnaestetska »kvazirealnost« ali literarna domislica, temveč je Kosovelova miseltu naravnana izrazito družbeno.To pa spet ne pomeni, da svojo lastno poezijo (ali literaturo/umetnostnasploh) postavlja v neposredno službo ideologije ali politike. O vsem temje Kosovel dokaj jasen v že omenjenem pismu Fanici Obidovi 27. julija1925:Mi sicer moramo poznati politiko, a moje delo je v literaturi. Jaz danes popolnomarazumem svoje delo in svoj delokrog: jaz moram delati v literaturitisto, kar delajo naši najmlajši v politiki, to se pravi: prikazovati dobo, vkateri propada en, a vstaja drugi svet. Zakaj in kako, to je individualno.To, vidite, je naša naloga. Literatura mora v ljudeh buditi spoznanje!Stopnjevati mora življenjsko silo. (ZD III: 401)Literatura mora torej v ljudeh stopnjevati življenjsko silo. Ta Kosovelovimperativ nas ponovno vrača k primerjavi med Kosovelom in Nietzschejem.Kar <strong>za</strong>deva Nietzscheja, smo ugotavljali, da lahko njegov pojem »voljado moči« pri Kosovelu uporabljamo samo pogojno, in sicer v pomenukonstruktivne volje do moči. Gre <strong>za</strong> takšno voljo do moči, ki bo v službičloveka kot »poosebljenega etosa«, če uporabim Kosovelovo sintagmo. Otem, kako in kaj je s tem »poosebljenim etosom«, najbolj plastično govoriKosovelovo predavanje Kri<strong>za</strong>, ki ga je imel novembra 1925 v Ljubljani. Obtem ni odveč opozorilo, da je prvi stavek tega predavanja enak naslovu – inprvemu verzu – slovite Kosovelove pesmi Evropa umira. Že bežen pogledna to pesem nam pokaže, da je prav<strong>za</strong>prav sestavljena iz dveh polovic oziromaiz dveh ravni. Na eni ravni smo priča izraziti, malodane transparentnidružbeni kritičnosti. To so seveda verzi o tem, da Evropa, takšna, kakršnapač je, umira, ali pa, da je društvo narodov laž. Drugi obraz te družbenekritičnosti, malodane ekstatičnosti, kakor jo omogoča navzven obrnjenapesniška subjektivnost, je poudarjena intimistična refleksija.Ta dvojnost družbene kritičnosti in izpostavljene individualnosti, ali padružbenega angažmaja in samotne melanholije je konstitutivni element tistepesniške drže, ki bi ji lahko nasploh rekli »Kosovelov paradoks«.Kosovelovo predavanje Kri<strong>za</strong> je eno njegovih najbolj znanih publicističnihbesedil. Ob tem predavanju se sicer ponujajo podobne ugotovitvekot že ob pesmi Rime, kjer srečamo verze, ki govorijo o tem, da je treba»spraviti fraze v muzeje«, ali pa, da je »vse izgubilo svojo vrednost«.Izguba vrednosti se je zgodila v imenu in v luči prihodnosti. Ta prihodnostse kaže na tistem horizontu, ki ga odpirajo besede o »smrti Evrope«. SmrtEvrope je pogoj <strong>za</strong> rojstvo novega sveta in novega človeka. Tu pa dobi posebenpomen ravno umetnost. Še več. Kosovel je v predavanju Kri<strong>za</strong> v prviosebi množine <strong>za</strong>pisal celo, da »mi« prihajamo »v znamenju umetnosti«.Obenem to umetnost razume v izrazito humanističnem smislu, v smislu86
MATEVŽ KOS: KOSOVEL IN NIHILIZEM: POSKUS KONSTRUKTIVNE DESTRUKCIJEpribliževanja človeku: »Človečanstvo umetnosti obstoji v tem, da se človekupribližamo« (ZD III: 20).Takoj nato sledi (pred<strong>za</strong>dnji) stavek, ki je parafra<strong>za</strong> znanih Nietzschejevihbesed oziroma gesel, vendar je Nietzschejeva misel tu prav<strong>za</strong>prav že kritično<strong>za</strong>vrnjena. Kosovel pravi takole: »Ne onkraj dobrega in zlega, pravičnegain krivičnega, ne z nadčloveško lažjo; kakor ljudje prihajamo sredidobrega in zlega, pravičnega in krivičnega.« (ZD III: 20)Kosovelov angažma je na tej ravni jasen: <strong>za</strong>hteva angažma v imenu človekain človeštva, ta angažma je obenem angažma v imenu dobrega protizlemu, pravice naproti krivici. Če Nietzsche odpravlja moralno razlikovanjemed dobrim in slabim in nasploh moralo kot tako (morala je nemorala),če je socializem <strong>za</strong>nj le ena izmed »modernih idej«, se pravi manifestacijadekadence na družbeni ravni (gl. zlasti Nietzsche 1991: 78–88), če je t. i.dobri človek <strong>za</strong>nj le drugo ime <strong>za</strong> modernega človeka, <strong>za</strong> kristjana oziromanihilista (Nietzsche 1989: 197), pa je Kosovelova <strong>za</strong>hteva ravno nasprotna:gre mu <strong>za</strong> poudarjeno etično-moralno držo, saj se mora človek – človekkot etični subjekt – vsakič znova odločati med dobrim in zlim, pravičnimin krivičnim. Od tod konec koncev tudi Kosovelove besede o človeku kot»poosebljenem etosu«.V enem izmed Kosovelovih dnevniških <strong>za</strong>pisov iz leta 1925 (O samomoru)srečamo formulacijo, ki govori o nihilizmu. In sicer gre <strong>za</strong> to, danihilizem izvira neposredno iz sodobne družbe: »nihilizem [je] edina filozofija,ki organično izvira iz sodobnega razprtja, razkola družbe in človeka,sodobna kultura ne more producirati boljše ‘filozofije’« (ZD III: 648).Alternativa temu nihilizmu ni volja do moči kot aktivno počelo življenja vNietzschejevem smislu, temveč gre Kosovelova poanta v drugačni smeri:govori namreč o etični revoluciji, ki je obenem duhovna revolucija, in sicerne v imenu nadčloveka kot figure volje do moči, ampak v imenu novegačlovečanstva in njegovih moralnih atributov, ki so, če uporabim Kosovelovbesednjak, predvsem ljubezen, poštenost in resnica.V tem kontekstu moramo razumeti pesnikove besede o velikem prevratu,sredi katerega stoji. O tem, da moramo »preko mostu nihilizma na pozitivnostran«. Sicer pa si je Kosovel že leta 1924 v svojo beležnico <strong>za</strong>pisaltole osamljeno, a dovolj pomenljivo, kritično-distancirano, misel: »Sanjeo nihilizmu; vse ubiti, vse razdreti, umreti, slast, razdejati, razdejati.« (ZDIII: 617)* * *Kar <strong>za</strong>deva Kosovelov odnos do Nietzscheja – in s tem do problematike»evropskega nihilizma« – se da potemtakem zgoščeno reči, da ta odnosplastično potrjuje kompleksnost Kosovelove pesniške in življenjskesituacije. Ravno ta situacija je pesniku najbrž narekovala napačno branjeNietzscheja, obenem pa poskuse ne samo prebolevanja, temveč tudi premagovanjanihilizma. Ti poskusi so, po logiki same stvari, onkraj pravilnostiali napačnosti razumevanja – pri Kosovelu so v najtesneši zvezi z njegovo87
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAživo, neposredno osebnostjo, pa tudi z »negativnim totalom« povojnegaslovenskega sveta dvajsetih let 20. stoletja.BIBLIOGRAFIJAKOSOVEL, Srečko (1964):Zbrano delo I, ur. A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Državna <strong>za</strong>ložbaSlovenije.– – – (1974): Zbrano delo II, ur. A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Državna <strong>za</strong>ložba Slovenije.– – – (1977): Zbrano delo III, ur. A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Državna <strong>za</strong>ložbaSlovenije.– – – (1967): Integrali’26. Ljubljana - Trst [Zbirka Bela kri<strong>za</strong>ntema]: Cankarjeva<strong>za</strong>ložba in Založništvo tržaškega tiska.KOS, Matevž (2003): Poskusi z Nietzschejem: Nietzsche in ničejanstvo v slovenskiliteraturi. Ljubljana [Razprave in eseji; 51]: Slovenska matica.– – – (1997): »Kako brati Kosovela?« V: S. Kosovel: Izbrane pesmi. Ljubljana[Knjižnica Kondor; 280]: Založba Mladinska knjiga, str. 129–167.KRALJ, Lado (1986): Ekspresionizem. Ljubljana [Literarni leksikon; 30]: Državna<strong>za</strong>ložba Slovenije.– – – (1986): »Kosovelov konstruktivizem: kritika pojma«. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>IX/2, str. 29–44.NIETZSCHE, Friedrich (1988): Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15Einzelbänden. [KSA]. Ur. G. Colli in M. Montinari. München/Berlin/NewYork: dtv/de Gruyter.– – – (1984): Tako je govoril Zaratustra. Knjiga <strong>za</strong> vse in <strong>za</strong> nikogar. Prev. JankoModer, Ljubljana [2. izdaja], [Filozofska knjižnica; 15]: Slovenska matica.– – – (1988): Ecce homo. Prev. Janko Moder, Ljubljana [Filozofska knjižnica; 36]:Slovenska matica.– – – (1991): Volja do moči. Poskus prevrednotenja vseh vrednot: iz <strong>za</strong>puščine184/88. Prev. Janko Moder. Ljubljana [Filozofska knjižnica; 34]: Slovenskamatica.VREČKO, Janez (1986): Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem.Maribor [Znamenja; 89]: Založba Obzorja.• POVZETEKUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.:1 Nietzsche F.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / filozofski vplivi /Nietzsche, Friedrich / ničejanstvo / nihilizemPrispevek se loteva vprašanja Kosovelovega odnosa do nihilizma. Natančneje:kaj je Kosovel razumel pod tem pojmom, ki ga je sam poznal in uporabljal,in v kakšni smeri je nihilistično problematiko skušal preseči. V tem kontekstuse razprava ustavlja zlasti ob Kosovelovem odnosu do Nietzscheja, kakor galahko rekonstruiramo s pomočjo Kosovelovih formulacij v njegovih pismih indnevniških <strong>za</strong>piskih. S pomočjo teh navedkov se da podrobneje argumentiratitezo, da <strong>za</strong> Kosovela alternativa nihilizmu ni volja do moči kot aktivno poče-88
MATEVŽ KOS: KOSOVEL IN NIHILIZEM: POSKUS KONSTRUKTIVNE DESTRUKCIJElo življenja v Nietzschejevem smislu, temveč gre Kosovelovo pri<strong>za</strong>devanje vdrugačni smeri. Pesnik govori namreč o etični revoluciji, ki je obenem duhovnarevolucija, in sicer ne v imenu nadčloveka kot izpostavljene in osamljene figurevolje do moči, ampak v imenu novega človeka, novega človečanstva in njegovihmoralnih atributov.Če Nietzsche odpravlja moralno razlikovanje med dobrim in slabim in nasplohmoralo kot tako (morala je nemorala), pa je Kosovelova <strong>za</strong>hteva ravnonasprotna: gre mu <strong>za</strong> poudarjeno etično-moralno držo, saj se mora človek– človek kot etični subjekt – vsakič znova odločati med dobrim in zlim, pravičnimin krivičnim. Od tod tudi Kosovelove besede o človeku kot »poosebljenemetosu«.Nietzsche ni ključna oseba, ki bi odpirala vrata Kosovelovega pesniškegasveta. Je pa v Kosovelovem odnosu do Nietzscheja neka pomenljiva ambivalenca.K tej ambivalenci je svoje prispevalo tudi tisto, čemur bi lahko reklinehote napačno razumevanje Nietzscheja.89
Kosovelovi konsi:nelahko ravnotežjemed subjektom in družboAlenka JovanovskiFilozofska fakulteta, LjubljanaObravnavo Kosovelovih konsov z vidika recepcijske estetike <strong>za</strong>čenjam stezo, ki jo H. R. Jauß razvil na podlagi Aristotelovega koncepta katharsis,Avguštinove kritike samoužitka v curiositas in Gorgiasovega nauka o vplivuafektov na prepričljivost govora (Jauß 1998: 102). Bistvo katarzičnegaugodja in same komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva tako prikažekot »v<strong>za</strong>jemno igro samoužitka v uživanju tujega, izkustva samega sebein izkustva drugega. Recipientu torej že od <strong>za</strong>četka pripisuje dejavno udeleženostpri konstituciji imaginarnega, ki mu ni bila priznana, dokler jebila esetska distanca v tradicionalni teoriji pojmovana le enosmiselno, kotzgolj kontemplativni in brezinteresni odnos do odaljenega predmeta« (Jauß1998: 102). Dialektična igra ima torej dva póla: samougodje in ugodje v»drugem«. Razmerje med njima v idealnem primeru vključuje sprejemnikovoobrnjenost k »jazu« in k »drugemu«, ki je po svoje ravno tako delsprejemnika samega. Jauß opo<strong>za</strong>rja tudi na možnost redukcije enega alidrugega pola, ko estetsko izkustvo »poide bodisi v brezdistančnem uživanjuobjekta ali v sentimentalnem samoužitku, s tem pa katarzično izkustvopodleže nevarnostim ideološkega <strong>za</strong>vzetja in porabe ter izgubi svojo pristnokomunikativno funkcijo« (Jauß 1998: 102).Tukaj bi rada dodala dvoje: prvič, skupni imenovalec dveh polov komunikativnezmožnosti estetskega izkustva je vedno spoznanje, s pomočjokaterega sprejemnik kot posameznik in kot družbeno bitje dobiva kritičnivpogled vase. A ker se nikoli ni mogoče razumeti do konca, je bralnemudejanju lastno samorazumevanje vedno proces, ki vključuje celo vrsto bralčevihodzivov. Afirmacija, negacija in kritična presoja so samo najpogostejšimed njimi.In drugič: o dveh polih komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva nesmemo razmišljati kot o nečem fiksnem, ne na sinhroni in ne na diahroniravni. Prav<strong>za</strong>prav sta bila oba pola v toku zgodovine podvržena številnimspremembam. Recimo: v srednjem veku, pri trubadurjih, je bil »drugi«strukturiran kot variacija na družbeno normo, ali pa je to bil božanski Ti(njegov predstavnik Jezus Kristus). V novem veku je »drugi« lahko mišljenkot ne<strong>za</strong>vedna intimna vsebina ali kot neu<strong>za</strong>veščeni družbeni vzorci vindividuumu. Ker me <strong>za</strong>nima problem Kosovelovih konsov, ne nameravamPrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka91
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAgovoriti obširno o raznih historičnih udejanjenjih »drugega«. Moj shematičniin poenostavljeni opis komunikativne razsežnosti želi zgolj ilustriratihistorično o<strong>za</strong>dje oziroma kontekst, v katerem nameravam <strong>za</strong>črtati problemkomunikativne zmožnosti ob Kosovelovih konsih.Novoveški model komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva semob Jaußu opisala kot subjektovo zrenje intimnih vsebin in neu<strong>za</strong>veščenihdružbenih norm ter kot odziv na vse to. Obstaja pa tudi možnost ideološkega<strong>za</strong>vzetja estetskega izkustva – bodisi v primeru nekritično afirmativnegaodziva na družbo bodisi v primeru odsotnosti kakršnega koli odziva (Jauß1998: 102). S tem je seveda ogrožena osrednja pridobitev novoveške estetike,namreč avtonomija umetnosti, ki pade, kadar se razmerje med umetnostjoin družbo poruši (prim. Adorno 2002: 5).Gadamerjeva te<strong>za</strong> o subjektivaciji estetike s Kantom in Schillerjem opo<strong>za</strong>rja,da je abstraktna estetska <strong>za</strong>vest nastala z ločitvijo umetnosti od življenja.Jaußovo razumevanje bistva komunikativne zmožnosti je v soglasjus sklepom, da je umetnost varna pred ideološkim <strong>za</strong>vzetjem le, kadar staohranjena oba pola komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva. Mojesamorazumevanje je skratka popolno le, kadar je »jaz« (kot posameznik inkot član družbe) v dinamičnem, nenehno odprtem dialogu z »drugim« (kotposameznikom in članom družbe). Če eden od elementov manjka, to nevpliva le na dialog med dvema poloma komunikativne zmožnosti, pač paovira in onemogoča moje samorazumevanje. Ali samorazumevanje splohlahko doseže polni obseg, če <strong>za</strong>nika bodisi »jaz« bodisi »drugega«?Po Adornu je podlaga avtonomne umetnosti ravno ravnotežje med posameznikomin družbo. Toda v novem veku ta odnos ni bil vedno uravnotežen,<strong>za</strong>to bi historični pregled najverjetneje poka<strong>za</strong>l neuravnoteženost,ki do določene mere blokira potrebo po igrivi oscilaciji med »jazom« in»drugim«. Tudi tukaj ponujam le površen vpogled v problem.Kantov model estetskega izkustva vsebuje vrsto elementov, ki podpirajosprejemnikovo usmerjenost v družbo; takšna je <strong>za</strong>poved, naj lepo občeugaja, naj bo čista estetska sodba subjektivno občeveljavna, <strong>za</strong> kar skrbitudi sensus communis; 1 vse to pa je pove<strong>za</strong>no s trditvijo, da je lepota simbolnravnega (KRM § 59.259; Kant 1999: 193). Nekatere sodobne interpretacijeberejo Kantovo estetsko teorijo kot pripravo na udejanjenje njegovemoralne filozofije, saj je estetski princip brezinteresnega ugodja hkrati tudisredstvo preseganja želja in interesov (prim. Marquard 1995: 37–69).Toda od Kanta dalje se je rahlo ravnotežje med posameznikom in družbo<strong>za</strong>čelo čedalje bolj nagibati k redukciji družbenega, kar je estetsko izkustvovodilo v nevarnost sentimentalnega samoužitka. Čeprav bistven premik vto smer nakazuje že interpretacija Kantovega modela estetskega izkustvapri poznem Schillerju, so postale posledice te interpretacije vidne šele konec19. stoletja. Takratna pesniška produkcija je namreč omogočala odziv,v katerem je estetsko uživajoči sprejemnik konstituiral lastno subjektiviteto– predvsem da bi jo učvrstil pred pritiskom vsakdanje realnosti.O. Marquard <strong>za</strong>to prav ob poznem Schillerju oblikuje tezo o estetiki/umetnosti kot anestetiki, ob kateri se je sprejemnik lahko čedalje bolj <strong>za</strong>piralv slonokoščeni stolp lastne notranjosti. Takšna umetnost/estetika skrat-92
alenka jovanovski: Kosovelovi konsi: …ka postane uspavalo ali vsaj sredstvo <strong>za</strong> blažitev bolečin (Marquard 1995:21–35), ki jih (post)romantični subjektiviteti povzroča družbeno–historičnihorizont. Umetnost to drago plača, kajti ko prereže popkovino z družbenimokoljem, iz katerega raste, postaja vse bolj eskapistična, vse bolj postajane-umetnost (an-estetika), spreminja se v uspavano lepotico, v skrajni fazipa lahko v svojem molčečem potrjevanju nepravičnih družbenih norm dosmrti uspava samo sebe. Njena avtonomija je ogrožena ali pa celo obstajazgolj še kot videz.Če Marquardovo tezo prenesem na komunikativno zmožnost estetskegaizkustva, ugotovim, da je bila kri<strong>za</strong> umetnosti konec 19. stoletja hkrati tudikri<strong>za</strong> komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva. Mallarméjeva želja,da bi v govorici izrekel celo neizrekljivo, je sicer pomenila izhod iz krizeumetnosti, vendar pa se je umetnost tako še bolj ločila od življenja (družbe)in se je znašla v še globlji krizi komunikativnosti. 2 Umetniško manj prepričljivisegment pesniške produkcije fin de siècla se je <strong>za</strong>dovoljil z enako neuravnoteženorazličico komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva, kjersprejemnik uživa v bolestno nasladnem opazovanju lastnega svetobolja,melanholije in depresije, z eno besedo – v kvalitetah lepe duše, pahnjenev grdi svet.Na to stanje so se kritično odzvale različne oblike evropskih literarnihavantgard, ki so izrojeni model komunikativne zmožnosti skušale uravnovesitiz maksimo o pove<strong>za</strong>vi med umetnostjo in življenjem. Avantgardističnaprenova komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva pa je imela vsaj dveravni. Po eni strani ji je šlo <strong>za</strong> neposredni napad na abstraktno estetsko<strong>za</strong>vest. Vendar domet gesel o požigu muzejev in o <strong>za</strong>vrnitvi kanoniziraneumetnosti in literarne tradicije skoraj nikoli ni presegel gole subverzijetradicionalnega, s konca 19. stoletja podedovanega modela komunikativnezmožnosti estetskega izkustva. 3 Avantgardistični umetniki so skušaliraztreščiti tako Pesnika kot tudi njegov slonokoščeni stolp, kamor se je<strong>za</strong>tekal bralec, da bi lahko kontempliral svoja, v melanholično tančico <strong>za</strong>vitačustva. Opisano težnjo, ki je najočitnejša v italijanskem futurizmu, jeKosovel odkril tudi v Micićevem zenitizmu.Po drugi strani so si avantgardisti pri<strong>za</strong>devali, da bi sprejemnika obrnilina<strong>za</strong>j v družbo, tudi če se je <strong>za</strong> to bilo treba odreči subjektovemu samopremisleku.Že Benjamin je opozoril na temeljno razliko med italijanskimiin ruskimi literarnimi avantgardisti. 4 Prvim je šlo <strong>za</strong> esteti<strong>za</strong>cijo družbe, <strong>za</strong>prilastitev realnega s strani imaginarnega, in to celo, ko so glasno oznanjalinujnost vojne, ki bi očistila bolni Zahod. Drugi so zdrsnili v podružbljenjeumetnosti in s tem v ideološko prilastitev imaginarnega s strani realnega,kar naj bi omogočila permanentna družbena revolucija. Vse negativne inpozitivne strani takšnih pri<strong>za</strong>devanj so se v sovjetskem režimu poka<strong>za</strong>lerazmeroma zgodaj. Avantgardisti so resda želeli ozdraviti ogroženo avtonomijoumetnosti, toda radikalne doze njihovega zdravila so jo ogrožaleše bolj.Oba tukaj prika<strong>za</strong>na modela povezovanja umetnosti in življenja si je trebaogledati še v luči Iserjevega razumevanja fiktivnega. Fiktivno namrečposreduje med poljem realnega in poljem imaginarnega (prim. Iser 2001 in93
KOSOVELOVA POETIKA1993). Italijanski avantgardisti so si pri<strong>za</strong>devali, da bi iz polja imaginarnegapreko polja fiktivnega vstopili v polje realnega in ga estetizirali. Ruskaavantgarda pa si je po drugi strani pri<strong>za</strong>devala, da bi polje realnega razširilav imaginarno, tega pa strukturirala v skladu s principi realnega. Očitno je,da je bil polju fiktivnega v obeh primerih odvzet avtonomni status, <strong>za</strong>to tapoezija ni umetniško prepričljiva.Zdaj si lahko ogledamo, kako je na krizo avtonomije umetnosti reagiraldrugi val slovenske avantgarde. Kosovel, ki je bil njegov vodilni predstavnik(Vrečko 1986: 81), je globoko razumel splošno krizo umetnosti,njene specifično slovenske poteze, a tudi krizo komunikativne zmožnostiestetskega izkustva. 5 V spisih Kri<strong>za</strong>, Umetnost in proletarec, Kri<strong>za</strong> človečanstva,Razpad družbe in propad umetnosti je kot bistvo te krize označilprepad med umetnostjo in življenjem/človekom (ZD 3/1: 12–21). Krizo bibilo mogoče preseči le, če bi (slovenska) umetnost črpala iz vsakdanjegaživljenja, ne pa bežala v umetnost <strong>za</strong>voljo umetnosti. 6 Vir pove<strong>za</strong>ve medumetnostjo in življenjem je lahko le umetnikovo »spoznanje« (ZD 3/1:41), 7 torej spoznanje sebe in sveta okoli sebe. Edinole takšno spoznanjelahko udejanji abstraktno nalogo povezovanja umetnosti in življenja; edinospoznanje je tisti pravi most med umetnostjo na eni strani ter življenjem,človekom, človeštvom in resnico na drugi strani. Drugače rečeno: umetnostni le »estetski«, pač pa tudi »življenjski problem« (ZD 3/1, DnevnikVII/9: 650).Rekla sem, da je italijanskim futuristom šlo predvsem <strong>za</strong> lahkotno, čeravnoinventivno povezovanje umetnosti in življenja; njihova umetnost ježelela rušiti predvsem tradicionalni model komunikacije s sprejemnikom,toda nič več kot to. Kosovel pa je izhod iz krize komunikativne zmožnostiin krize umetnosti videl v drugačni, v etični, vsebinski, duhovni revoluciji, 8ki bi privedla do globinske pove<strong>za</strong>ve med umetnostjo in življenjem.Takšno je interpretativno o<strong>za</strong>dje, ki bo spremljalo mojo interpretacijoKosovelovih konsov. Ob tem si <strong>za</strong>stavljam dvoje vprašanj: (1) ali konsiomogočajo uravnotežanje obeh polov komunikativne zmožnosti estetskegaizkustva in (2) ali je Kosovel z njimi presegal »izgubo komunikacije vavtonomni umetnosti« (Jauß 1998: 103)?Odgovor na ti dve vprašanji bom <strong>za</strong>čela graditi s strukturno značilnostjoKosovelovih konsov, ki jo sama imenujem ironi<strong>za</strong>cija. Ironi<strong>za</strong>cija je edenizmed pesniških postopkov, s katerimi skuša Kosovel onemogočati izrojenoobliko sprejemnikovega soočanja s samim sabo in hkrati doseči bralčevokritično oceno družbenih norm. Prav<strong>za</strong>prav je ironi<strong>za</strong>cija minusna funkcija– te pa so po Iserjevem mnenju značilne <strong>za</strong> modernistične tekste. S pomočjominusnih funkcij strukturirani tekst ne izpolnjuje bralčevih, ob nemodernističnihtekstih privzgojenih pričakovanj: ne ponuja namreč nobenegaključa <strong>za</strong> konstitucijo tekstovnega smisla. Minusne funkcije so tisto, karostane po razveljavitvi bralčevega pričakovanja; so torej eden od vzrokov,da modernistični tekst namesto ključa <strong>za</strong> branje in konstitucijo tekstnegasmisla bralcu ponuja zgolj prazno mesto. Prazna mesta pa ne spodbujajole prenosa teksta v bralčevo <strong>za</strong>vest, ampak tudi pospešujejo bralčevo interpretativnodejavnost. Bralec mora skratka nenehno iskati interpretativni94
alenka jovanovski: Kosovelovi konsi: …ključ. Ker pa se vsaka interpretacija v nadaljnjem poteku branja izkaže <strong>za</strong>zmotno, lahko bralec radikalnih modernističnih tekstov vsakič doseže zgolj<strong>za</strong>silno interpretacijo, ki jo bo že naslednji trenutek nadomestil nov interpretativniključ. 9Ironi<strong>za</strong>cija kot bistvena oblika minusne funkcije pri Kosovelu temelji napojmu lepe duše. To pomeni, da njena funkcija ni pove<strong>za</strong>na le s tehnikalijamibralnega dejanja, ampak posega prav na polje subjektovega samo<strong>za</strong>vedanja.Funkcija Kosovelove ironi<strong>za</strong>cije je <strong>za</strong>to hermenevtična.Treba je poudariti, da je celotna Kosovelova lirika, ne le njegove zgodnjepesmi, <strong>za</strong>res močno <strong>za</strong>znamovana s pojmom lepe duše. 10 M. Kos priKosovelu najde dve obliki lepe duše: prva se pojavlja v njegovi zgodnjipoeziji, in je pove<strong>za</strong>na s heglovsko lepo dušo oziroma z njeno postromantičnoizpeljavo. Nekateri dnevniški <strong>za</strong>piski kažejo, da se je Kosovel pogostobojeval s to obliko lepe duše. 11 Druga oblika lepe duše pri Kosovelu seje razvila na podlagi vrste dejavnikov: cankarjanskega etosa, travmatičneizkušnje prve svetovne vojne, dodelitve slovenskega Primorja Italiji, izkušnjefašizma v Trstu in izkušnje etičnega ter umetniškega spanca ljubljanskegaslovenstva. V Kosovelovih esejih dobi ta druga različica lepeduše obliko novega človeka/umetnika, človeka, ki je »duhovnik resnice,pravice in lepote« (ZD 3/1: 650). Še več: druga različica lepe duše pomenimost od postromantične, vase <strong>za</strong>sanjane lepe duše do Kosovelove socialnein socialistične angažiranosti.Čeprav je Kosovel prvo obliko lepe duše v določenem trenutku prerasel,pa v konsih ni tematiziral njene zrelejše oblike, ampak ravno to naivnoinačico. Konsi so namreč pogosto tako strukturirani, da bralca vabijo videntifikacijo z 'lepo dušo', v nekakšno »harmonijo trudne bolečine«, kakorda želijo obuditi melanholično in osamljeno razsežnost bralčeve subjektivitete.Seveda je imel Kosovel povsem določen namen: bralcu je namrečželel poka<strong>za</strong>ti, kako etično zgrešeno in v modernem svetu popolnoma neuporabnoje, če samega sebe dojema kot melanholično lepo subjektiviteto.Ta rez v bralčevi identifikaciji z lepo dušo konsi dosežejo ravno z ironi<strong>za</strong>cijo,ki bralca prisili v distanco od lepe duše in od lastne naslade v njej. Čebralec udejanji takšno estetsko distanco, ima dobre možnosti <strong>za</strong> kritičenpremislek o družbi in sebi v njej. Dober primer takšnega postopka sta konsaProstituirana kultura in Srce v alkoholu.Znamenit primer ironi<strong>za</strong>cije v kombinaciji z metaforo pa najdemo v prvihtreh verzih pesmi Sferično zrcalo. 12 Sferično zrcalo kot metafora <strong>za</strong>umetnost, ki poudarja vse napačno, tu stopa v kontrast z navadnim umetniškimzrcalom. Podoben učinek dosega Sferično zrcalo z montažno tehnikosopostavljanja časopisnega fragmenta, <strong>razprave</strong> o umetnosti in fragmentarnegaposnetka romantičnega modela poezije o kostanjih, ki šumijo <strong>za</strong> vodo(v. 7–9). Vse to je zgolj vaba, ki je lepi duši nastavljena, da bi sprejemnikupreprečili napačen tip estetske identifikacije (v. 10–11). 13Vendar pa je nadaljevanje pesmi bolj kot <strong>za</strong> bralca pomenljivo <strong>za</strong>Kosovela, <strong>za</strong> pesnika samega: ta namreč ironizira lastno nihilometafizičnosubjektiviteto, sprašuje se o lastni pesniški produkciji in o njenem učinkuv družbi. V obliko sferičnega zrcala oblikovan pripis Zakaj si spustil/95
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAZlati čoln v močvirje se nanaša na baržunasto liriko in njej lastnoobliko lepe duše, ki pa je v popolnem anahronizmu z močvirjem družbe, sajjo bo to samo nemo pogoltnilo. Pripis berem kot izjavo lepe duše, a hkratikot kritiko šibkosti izrojenega Kantovega-Schillerjevega modela komunikativnezmožnosti estetskega izkustva, kjer sprejemnik nemo, pasivno, nereflektiranopristaja na družbena dejstva. 14 Obenem je pripis mogoče bratitudi kot izhod iz šibkosti izrojenega modela estetskega izkustva: pesnikje preprosto moral spustiti zlati čoln svoje baržunaste lirike v močvirno(družbeno) realnost vsakdanjega življenja, zlati čoln je preprosto moralpreobraziti v sferično zrcalo. S tem se je ustvarila pove<strong>za</strong>va med življenjem(močvirjem) in poezijo (čolnom, ki je postal sferično zrcalo).Toda v takšni poeziji se je izrazito okrepila spoznavna razsežnost: sferičnozrcalo ni navadno zrcalo, ampak poudarjeno, se pravi izrazito ostro inkarikirano odslikava močvirno realnost družbe. Medbesedilno poigravanjes Cankarjevo belo kri<strong>za</strong>ntemo, ki jo Kosovel obarva socialistično rdeče, padoda še eno razsežnost te nove umetnosti. Socialistično rdeča kri<strong>za</strong>ntema–umetnost družbe ne šiba z neke vzvišene pozicije, ampak ostaja v družbi,šiba njene napake, vendar tudi deluje znotraj te družbe.Kosovelovi eseji in njegov prestop v socialistično stranko kažejo, da semu je možnost plodnega delovanja v družbi vse jasneje ka<strong>za</strong>la ravno v pove<strong>za</strong>viz razrednim bojem. Samo takšna umetnost bi postala tisti družbeniin življenjski faktor, ki bi pripomogel k preobrazbi močvirne, z metafizičnimnihilizmom okužene slovenske in evropske družbe v zdravo, živo,konstruktivno družbo, kjer vsak posameznik svoje poznavanje drugega(sočloveka, družbe) usklajuje z nenehnim samopremislekom.Toda s tem se je pesem Sferično zrcalo nenadoma pretvorila v razmisleko sodobni umetnosti in o pesnikovih (Kosovelovih) ustvarjalnih hotenjih.Bralec je tukaj potisnjen v precej nehvaležen položaj; na voljo ima samodve možnosti. Lahko <strong>za</strong>v<strong>za</strong>me vlogo nekoliko tihega, voyeaurskega opazovalcapesnikove nihilistične samodestrukcije in njegovega premisleka omožnosti poezije. Kosovel se je nesmiselnosti te bralčeve vloge <strong>za</strong>vedal,saj je v svojih dnevnikih večkrat <strong>za</strong>pisal, da mora fazo nihilistične destrukcijein spusta skozi ničišče vsakdo preživeti v sebi. 15 Vsakdo – zlasti papesnik – mora sam in osamljen čez most nihilizma, da bi s pesmimi stopilpred javnost, ji nastavil sferično zrcalo, <strong>za</strong>čel s konstruktivnim delom. Zatoje konse, ki jih je morebiti celo sam imel zgolj <strong>za</strong> mimobežne rezultatelastne človeške in estetske preobrazbe – vse do jeseni 1925 pisal v strogitajnosti (prim. Vrečko 1986: 110).Druga možna vloga, ki jo lahko <strong>za</strong>sede bralec Kosovelovih konsov,je nekoliko pogumnejša in tvega konstitucijo smisla tam, kjer smisla ni.Bralec mora v tem primeru premagati hromečo estetsko distanco, v kateroga kons <strong>za</strong>pleta. Hkrati se mora spopadati s svojo, ob nemodernističnihtekstih privzgojeno recepcijo literarnega teksta. Svojo željo po pasivni recepcijimora nenehno presegati z dejavnostjo. Na ta način postaja njegovarecepcija pesmi poudarjeno aktivna, konstitucija tekstnega smisla pa vsebolj <strong>za</strong>vestna. Pesem skratka sili bralca, naj priv<strong>za</strong>me vlogo, ki jo je <strong>za</strong>nj v19. stoletju opravljala literarna kritika.96
alenka jovanovski: Kosovelovi konsi: …V naporu konstitucije tekstnega smisla pa se skriva še neka druga naloga.Ta naloga je konstitucija bralčeve subjektivitete in je pomembnejšaod prve, hkrati pa je tipično modernistična. Za konstitucijo subjektivitete vmodernističnem tekstu je značilno protislovje: na eni strani imamo željo posubjektiviteti, ki naj bo celovita in urejena, toda na drugi strani imamo svettekst,ki je razlomljen, kaotičen, oropan referenčnega okvira. Zato je željapo celoviti subjektiviteti tu kar naprej frustrirana. Konkreti<strong>za</strong>cija takšnegateksta je možna le, če se branje sproti preobraža v interpretacijo. Bralec obkonsih izgrajuje subjektiviteto, ki ne doseže celovitosti, pač pa ostaja zgoljinterpretacija – na moč nestalna, krhka, <strong>za</strong>ve<strong>za</strong>na edinole razumevanju kotneskončnemu (osebnemu in zgodovinskemu) projektu. Subjektiviteta kotinterpretacija je skratka <strong>za</strong>ve<strong>za</strong>na razumevanju kot večjezikovnemu projektu.(Pri tem <strong>za</strong>dnjem možnem primeru konstitucije tekstnega smisla jeprav gotovo na delu naša, postmoderna recepcija Kosovela, ki v konstituiranemsmislu/subjektiviteti vidi zgolj eno izmed mnogoterih možnih subjektivitet/interpretacij.)Subjektiviteta kot (zgolj) interpretacija, ki jo braleckonstituira v recepciji Kosovelovih konsov, potemtakem temelji na estetskidistanci. Natančneje: estetska distanca je tista, ki med branjem nenehnorahlja konstituirani smisel/subjektiviteto in ji spodmika tla pod nogami!Zdi se, da je Kosovel v fazi, ko je poezija konstruktivnosti <strong>za</strong>čela prevladovatinad konstruktivistično poezijo, to tudi <strong>za</strong>znal – in v dnevnik <strong>za</strong>pisal:»Pišete s srcem? Ne | s peresom. A kar ne pride iz duše ne gre doduše in nima cene. Forma« (ZD 3/1, Dnevnik XII/16: 735). Kar sprva dišipo anti-modernizmu, je v bistvu znova zelo moderno. Pisati s »peresom«namreč vodi v redukcijo človeka na razum in s tem na popolnoma ne-estetskiin nečloveški mehanizem. Pisati iz »srca« <strong>za</strong>to ne pomeni le, da nekaj,kar je ne<strong>za</strong>vedno že vseskozi »tu«, prinašamo na površino; pomeni tudietično kvaliteto in željo, da bi to kvaliteto predali bralcu. Je interpretabilnostmodernistične subjektivitete pri Kosovelu našla svojo fluidno trdnostnatanko v »srcu«? Čeprav to <strong>za</strong>gotovo presega domet konsov, se vendarlezdi, da si je Kosovel <strong>za</strong>čel pri<strong>za</strong>devati <strong>za</strong> prav takšno rešitev, kakor hitrose je njegova raznolika pesniška dejavnost <strong>za</strong>čela osredotočati na poezijokonstruktivnosti.V pesmi Sferično zrcalo je premoč estetske distance posledica različnihpostopkov, ki sprejemnika ovirajo pri tem, da bi konstituiral in v sebi tudiučvrstil lepo dušo kot napačni tip subjektivitete. Toda hkrati se ponesrečitudi sprejemnikov <strong>za</strong>obrat v družbo: tudi ta v konsih ostaja na ravni distanciranerefleksije, na ravni interpretacije. Pisanje s peresom tako ostajana ravni očrtavanja forme in ker je ta redukcija življenja, je seveda ni močprenesti na<strong>za</strong>j v življenje. Premoč estetske distance postane vzrok <strong>za</strong> izgubokomunkativnosti. Za pove<strong>za</strong>vo umetnosti in življenja se tako kot nujnaznova izkaže estetska identifikacija. Na podoben problem je ob estetskidistanci naletel tudi B. Brecht (Jauß 1998: 113).Če torej nekateri konsi še kar uspešno uravnotežajo oba pola komunikativnezmožnosti estetskega izkustva in s tem povezujejo umetnost z življenjem,pomeni Sferično zrcalo kritično <strong>za</strong>mejitev te težnje. Sprejemnikse morda celo ukvarja s kritičnim pretresom vloge sodobne umetnosti v97
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAdružbi, vendar se ob tem izgublja v poudarjenem miselnem in teoretskemnaporu – v interpretaciji in samointerpretaciji, ki sta takorekoč vprogramiraniv besedilo pesmi in ju bralno dejanje udejanja vsaj do neke mere. Vpoudarjeni samorefleksivnosti smemo videti samo nekoliko finejšo, čeravnosamokritično obliko sprejemnikove nasladne samo<strong>za</strong>zrtosti. Na ravnirazmišljanja o ravnotežju med obema poloma komunikativne zmožnostiestetskega izkustva to znova pomeni, da tudi konsom kljub svobodni refleksiji,v katero silijo bralca, ne uspeva dejanska pove<strong>za</strong>va z družbo.Kosovel je do takšnega sklepa prišel tudi na <strong>za</strong>vestni ravni, ko je ponastopu Zenita v Ljubljani aprila ali maja 1925 spoznal, da preobrazba,kakršno so propagirali zenitisti, ne more biti zgolj esteticistično in formalistično– prazno igračkanje. Preobrazba umetnosti ne more biti zgolj onemogočanjedoločenih tipičnih estetskih odzivov, temveč mora postati pravvsebinska preobrazba. S tem je mislil na notranjo prenovo posameznika innato družbe, vzrok in obenem posledica takšne preobrazbe pa bi bila ravnonova umetnost. 16 To spoznanje ga je po vključitvi v socialistično strankopoleti 1925 že jeseni istega leta spodbudilo, da se je središče njegovih sicerzelo raznolikih ustvarjalnih hotenj od pisanja konsov počasi <strong>za</strong>čelo premikatik poeziji konstruktivnosti in k načrtom <strong>za</strong> prozo.Bistvo tega prehoda bom skušala opisati s prinicpom gibljivosti. Todakaj pomeni ta gibljivost? Tukaj nimam v mislih hitrosti gibanja, nad kateroso se navduševali italijanski futuristi, Kosovel pa je imel ambivalenten odnosdo nje. 17 Ravno tako v mislih nimam montaž kot strukturnega principagradnje pesniškega teksta.Montaže od bralca <strong>za</strong>htevajo neverjetno asociativno hitrost; silijo gav preskakovanje iz enega semantičnega polja v drugo, v lepljenje enegafragmenta z drugim. Silijo ga celo v modernistični kolaž različnih modelovpoezije in bralec je <strong>za</strong>radi vsega tega prisiljen v poudarjeno dejavnost.Lastno subjektiviteto mora pripoznati kot nekaj dinamičnega, fluidnega,interpretabilnega – kot nekaj, kar je v dobi nestabilnosti postalo radikalnonestabilno. S tem pa mora priznati popoln neuspeh pri<strong>za</strong>devanja sodobnegačloveka, da bi iz kaotičnega sveta oblikoval neko urejeno celoto. Braleclahko to spoznanje sprejme, v njem igrivo uživa, morda ludistično žongliraz njim – toda enako legitimno je, če ga <strong>za</strong>vrže in si reče »ne, mojasubjektiviteta je lepa in celovita, le svet okoli nje je tisti, ki jo subvertira inpripravlja njen tragični konec«.V <strong>za</strong>dnji izmed naštetih možnosti <strong>za</strong> recepcije Kosovelovih konsov smemovideti enega izmed osnovnih vzrokov, <strong>za</strong>kaj slovenski prostor vse do70-ih let 20. stoletja ni mogel sprejeti avantgardistične oziroma modernističneumetnosti (tudi Kosovelove). Bralec, čigar estetska vzgoja je temeljilana izrojeni Kantovi-Schillerjevi shemi, je v konsih preprosto moralvideti ‘slabo poezijo’. Nena<strong>za</strong>dnje so te drobne eksplozivne pesmi radikalnorušile njegov horizont pričakovanja. V jedru <strong>za</strong>vrnitve Kosovelovihkonsov pa je v resnici šlo zgolj <strong>za</strong> to, da je bila subverzija predstave osubjektiviteti kot absolutni ali že kar monolitni celovitosti (subverzija predstaveo postromantični lepi duši) <strong>za</strong> večino nekdanjih bralcev popolnomanesprejemljiva.98
alenka jovanovski: Kosovelovi konsi: …Ko torej izključimo obe navedeni razlagi principa gibljivosti, nam ostanele še tretja. Princip gibljivosti je lahko samo tisti princip, s pomočjo kateregaje Kosovel svojo poezijo želel <strong>za</strong>res konstruktivno odpreti v družbo.Tukaj nikakor ne gre <strong>za</strong> gibanje, ki ga lahko opišem s prispodobo premicein je značilno <strong>za</strong> prej opisana principa gibljivosti. Princip gibljivosti, o kateremgovorim, je bolj vektor – je usmerjeno gibanje, ki stremi k določenemucilju in hoče doseči nek učinek v bralcu samem in v družbi. Prav takšentip gibanja je možno pove<strong>za</strong>ti s pojmom »gibljiva filozofija«, ki Kosovelupomeni akcijo, delovanje v družbi. 18 Kosovelova pesniška dejavnost se je<strong>za</strong>čela neposredno vgrajevati v družbo ravno z recitacijskimi večeri, predavanji,z načrtovanjem različnih krožkov in z načrti <strong>za</strong> <strong>za</strong>ložbo Strelci(gl. Vrečko 1986: 168–214, 218–229). Pesniško ustvarjanje se je tu <strong>za</strong>čelopreobražati v ustvarjanje znotraj družbe, ki naj bi posredovalo med posameznikikot različnimi deli družbe, družbo preobrazilo in jo pove<strong>za</strong>lo vdinamično celoto. S tem se je Kosovel <strong>za</strong>čel bližati tisti vlogi, ki jo je poiesisimela pri Grkih pred Platonom. Pesniška poiesis je <strong>za</strong>nj postala poiesisdružbe. Ne esteti<strong>za</strong>cija politike in ne politi<strong>za</strong>cija umetnosti.Če to drži, potem bi to bila najučinkovitejša možna rešitev zmanjšanekomunikativnosti moderne umetnosti. Dejavni obrat v družbo, v življenjein v resnico, ki ga je Kosovel želel doseči v poeziji, je iskanje ravnotežjamed obema poloma komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva postavilopred nove izzive in nove nevarnosti. Slednjim je sčasoma podleglopesniško delo nekaterih ruskih avantgardistov, kjer je opaziti (1) redukcijosprejemnikovega soočanja s samim sabo, (2) manipuliran »premislek« odružbenih normah in (3) spodbudo, da bi se ideološko nadzorovani »premislek«neposredno vgradil v družbo.Kosovel bi se tej nevarnosti najbrž izmaknil, tudi če leta 1926 ne bi umrl.V njegovih spisih namreč vse prepogosto beremo, kako resnična umetnostraste iz umetnikovega spoznanja, ki je njegovo osebno, notranje spoznanje,spoznanje iz časa samotne hoje čez most nihilizma. Nuja po vitalnem obračanjuvase je dobro <strong>za</strong>gotovilo <strong>za</strong> to, da bi tudi v svoji konstruktivni poezijibralca zmogel zvabiti v samokritično refleksijo.To hipotezo bi bilo po drugi strani treba preveriti še z analizo Kosoveloveetične drže, podlaga katere bi bila najbrž kar neka posebna oblika religioznosti,ki se hkrati izmika ideologiji. Prav v slednji pa bi lahko prepoznaližlahtni ostanek tistega zunajestetskega polja, h kateremu se je estetsko izkustvoobračalo še pred novim vekom, medtem ko se pri Kosovelu udejanjiskozi poudarjeni etos ali ob izrazih človek, človečanstvo. 19 Nelahko ravnotežjemed obema poloma komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustvabi v Kosovelovi socialistično-revolucionarni poeziji verjetno <strong>za</strong>gotavljaloravno vztrajanje na kritičnem sprejemnikovem samopremisleku kot sredstvu,ki blokira podivjano dejavnost stranke ali totalitarnega režima kotnadsubjekta.99
KOSOVELOVA POETIKABIBLIOGRAFIJAADORNO, Th. (2002): Aesthetic Theory, prev. Robert Hullot-Kentor, London –New York: Continuum [Athlone Contemporary European Thinkers].BENJAMIN, W. (2000): »Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction«, prev. HarryZohn, v: The Continental Aesthetics Reader, ur. Clive Cazeaux, London – NewYork: Routledge.GADAMER, H.G. (2001): Resnica in metoda, prev. Tomo Virk, Ljubljana: LUDLiteratura.GRISI, Fr., ur. (1994): I futuristi, Milano: Newton (Grandi tascabili economici;260).ISER, W. (2001): Bralno dejanje, prev. Alfred Leskovec, Ljubljana: Studiahumanitatis.ISER, W. (1993): The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology,Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.JAUß, H.R. (1998): Estetsko izkustvo in literarna hermenevtika, prev. Tomo Virk,Ljubljana: LUD Literatura.KANT, I. (1999): Kritika razsodne moči, prev. Rado Riha, Ljubljana: <strong>ZRC</strong> Sazu.KERMAUNER, T. (1993): Poezija slovenskega <strong>za</strong>hoda, 3. del, Maribor: Obzorja.KOS, J. (1995): Na poti v postmoderno, Ljubljana: LUD Literatura.KOS, J. ( 2001): Primerjalna zgodovina slovenske literature, Ljubljana: Mladinskaknjiga.KOS, M. (1997): »Kako brati Kosovela?«, v: Srečko Kosovel, Izbrane pesmi,Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, str. 129–165.KOSOVEL, S. (1977): Zbrano delo III, drugi del (ZD). Ljubljana: Državna <strong>za</strong>ložbaSlovenije.KOSOVEL, S. (2003): Integrali 26’, ur. A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Cankarjeva<strong>za</strong>ložba (faksimile izdaje iz l. 1967, Ljubljana: ČZP Ljudska pravica [Belakri<strong>za</strong>ntema]).MARQUARD, O. (1994): Estetica e anestetica, Milano: Il Mulino.SCHILLER, Fr. (2003): O estetski vzgoji človeka, prev. Štefan Vevar, sprem. bes.Bojan Žalec, Ljubljana: Študentska <strong>za</strong>ložba (Claritas; 29).VREČKO, J. (1986): Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda inzenitizem, Maribor: Obzorja.VREČKO, J. (1996): »Kosovelovo razmerje do moderne tehnike«, v: Kras, letn. 3,št. 14 (27.V.1996), str. 8–11.OPOMBE1KRM § 20, 64 isl. (Kant 1999: 78), § 21,65 (Kant 1999: 79), § 40,158 (Kant1999: 134).2»V istem času se je umetnost odzvala z doktrino l’art pour l’art, se pravi, steologijo umetnosti. Tako je prišlo do vznika nekakšne negativne teologije v oblikiideje 'čiste' umetnosti, ki ni le <strong>za</strong>nikala kakršno koli družbeno funkcijo umetnosti.(V poeziji je bil Mallarmé prvi, ki je privzel takšno stališče)« (Benjamin 2000:326).3Gl. Manifesto del futurismo (I futuristi 1990: 29 isl.). Benjamin govori o šokukot glavnem namenu dadaistične umetnosti (Benjamin 2000: 335).4»'Fiat ars – pereat mundus', trdi fašizem in, kot priznava Marinetti, pričakuje,da bo vojna omogočila umetniško <strong>za</strong>doščenje zmožnosti <strong>za</strong>znavanja, ki jo je100
alenka jovanovski: Kosovelovi konsi: …tehnologija spremenila. Takšna je očitno poraba l’art pour l’arta. Človeštvo, kije v Homerjevem času bilo objekt kontemplacije olimpskih bogov, je zdaj samosvoj objekt. Njegova samo-odtujitev je šla tako daleč, da mu izkustvo lastnegauničenja ponuja prvorazredno estetsko ugodje. Tako je namreč s politiko, ki jofašizem estetizira. Komunizem odgovarja s politiziranjem umetnosti« (Benjamin2000: 337).5ZD 3/1, Dnevnik VII (1925): 656,28: »Da je umetnost gibalo življenja nepa uspavalno sredstvo <strong>za</strong> uživanje, marveč sredstvo <strong>za</strong> duševno gibanje, ki se bonadaljevalo v življenju.«6ZD 3/1, 35 (Razpad družbe in umetnosti): »Ta namišljeni pogovor je verna slikanašega duševnega življenja. Izmikanje realnosti, bojazen pred trdo in brezobzirnopalico vsakdanjosti in kot nujna posledica popolna desorientacija v vseh še takoneobhodnih in važnih življenjskih vprašanjih.« ZD 3/1: 37: »da postane njemusamemu [umetniku] ideal življenja brezdelje in uživanje, izgubi ono agresivnosilo, ki izvira le iz trdega kontakta z vsakdanjimi življenjskimi borbami. S tem, dapostane njegov edini cilj samoizpopolnjevanje, izgubi moč <strong>za</strong> reševanje vsakdanjihvprašanj, izgubi stik s celotnim življenjem.«7Pismo F. Obidovi z dne 27. 8. 1925 (ZD 3/1: 401), kjer spoznanje ni stvarprazne didaktike: »Literatura mora v ljudeh buditi spoznanje! Stopnjevati moraživljenjsko silo.«8ZD 3/1, Dnevnik VII/10: 651 in Dnevnik VII/35, 37, 38: 658 isl.9»Neizpolnitev tako temeljnih pričakovanj je prazno mesto, ki ga je tradicionalniroman vedno <strong>za</strong>polnil« (Iser 2001: 310). To Iserjevo ugotovitev je zlahka mogočeprenesti na Kosovelove konse. Za prazno mesto gl. predvsem Iser 2001: 303–304.Za »minusno funkcijo« gl. mdr. »bolj ko je besedilo ‘moderno’, bolj izpolnjujesvoje minusne funkcije« (Iser 2001: 310–311).10M. Kos opo<strong>za</strong>rja na številne »baržunaste« besede v konsih, »kot so na primerduša, trpljenje, bolečina, lepota, sanje, srce, samota, bolest, trudnost« (M. Kos1997: 163. Gl. tudi str. 145–152 in 154–160).11Za ilustracijo tega občutja gl. pismo F. Obidovi z dne 25. 8. 1923 (ZD 3/1:381): »Danes je jesen, ki ropa Lepoto, da odgrinja Resnico [Smrt, op.p.], ki je brezmejnagro<strong>za</strong>. Ali mislite kdaj – na lepoto jeseni – na tisto brezmejno žalost, v katerije človek sam in se vda v naročje žalosti kakor otrok materi, ko je človek harmonijatrudne bolečine in bi rad legel in <strong>za</strong>spal.«12»Ali je krivo zrcalo, / če imaš kljukast nos. / Slava Heineju. / Poglej se v sferičnozrcalo, / da se spoznaš! / Nacionalizem je laž. / Kostanji <strong>za</strong> vodo šumijo, / kstarinarjem je prišla jesen. / Njih trgovine so polne starin. / Cin, cin. / Obesi se naklin. / Rdeča kri<strong>za</strong>ntema. / Jesenski grob… / Beli grob. / Ivan Cankar. // ZAKAJ SISPUSTIL/ ZLATI ČOLN V MOČVIRJE?«13Sferično zrcalo, v. 10–11: »Cin, cin / Obesi se na klin.«14Gl. ZD 3/1, Dnevnik VII/9: 650 (iz leta 1925): »[…] le umetnik, ki je izstopiliz močvirja sodobne družbe in stopil v novo družbo, ki jo je <strong>za</strong>čutil sam, le ta je noviduhovnik resnice, pravice, človečanstva in dobrote«.15ZD 3/1: 398 in 400 (pismi F. Obidovi z dne 12. 7. in z dne 27. 7. 1925).16»Revolucija je vsebinski ne formalen pojem. […] Revolucija forme je preplitkain prekratkotrajna, revolucija, ki jo oznanjamo, je revolucija vsebine evropskegačloveka, revolucija življenja sploh, kajti brez te ne more nastati nova umetnost«(ZD 3/1, Dnevnik VII/37: 658).17Gl. manifest Mehanikom! Gl. tudi Vrečko 1996.18ZD 3/1, Dnevnik VII/7: 650; gl. še Vrečko 1986: 105–110.19O tem piše Kermauner 1993.101
KOSOVELOVA POETIKA• POVZETEKUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / recepcijska estetika /estetsko izkustvoObravnava Kosovelovih pesmi se osredotoča na komunikativno zmožnostestetskega izkustva kot razmerje med sprejemnikovo obrnjenostjo »vase« in k»drugemu«. Kri<strong>za</strong> Kantove-Schillerjeve sheme estetskega izkustva je avantgardistevodila k poskusu, da bi porušeno ravnotežje med dvema poloma komunikativnezmožnosti uravnotežili s pove<strong>za</strong>vo umetnosti in življenja. Podobenposkus <strong>za</strong>znamo ob Kosovelovih konsih, kjer ironi<strong>za</strong>cija »lepe duše« bralcuonemogoča nasladno <strong>za</strong>zrtost vase, ga sili v estetsko distanco od sebe in slednjičv kritični premislek o sebi ter o družbenih normah. Nekateri konsi omogočajouravnoteženje obeh polov komunikativne zmožnosti estetskega izkustva,v pesmi Sferično zrcalo pa samo branje pesmi <strong>za</strong>hteva sprotno interpretacijo.Zaradi tega ne more priti do ravnotežja med obema poloma komunikativnezmožnosti. Ker je nasledek poudarjene sprejemnikove refleksivne dejavnostizgolj (subjektiviteta kot) interpretacija, se sprejemnik ne razpre dovolj v družbo.Izhod iz takega stanja je Kosovel videl v socialističnem delovanju in vintegralih, kjer naj bi se umetnost končno pove<strong>za</strong>la z življenjem. Bistven delravnotežja komunikativne zmožnosti pa v tem primeru ostaja sprejemnikovsamopremislek.102
»Quale triestinità?«:glasovi in odmeviiz italijanskega TrstaKatia PizziUniver<strong>za</strong> v LondonuPri vnovičnem vrednotenju kar se le da obširnega korpusa tržaške poezijev italijanščini se poskuša moj članek približati tudi poetiki in ustvarjanjuSrečka Kosovela. Zame kot proučevalko tržaških literarnih identitet je izzivocenjevanje 'stanja poezije' v posebnem obdobju tržaške zgodovine– ocenjevanje njene obrobnosti glede na središčni 'drugje': glede na miselin delo znamenitega slovenskega pesnika Srečka Kosovela. V razpravise bom najprej dotaknila nekaj italijanskih pesnikov, ki so bili, grossomodo, Kosovelovi sodobniki in je nekatere izmed njih poznal; to so ScipioSlataper (1888-1915), Giulio Camber Barni (1891-1941) in Umberto Saba(1883-1957). Nadalje bom mimogrede opozorila na skupino komajdaomembe vrednih pesnikov, pove<strong>za</strong>nih z vzdušjem glasne italianità, ki jepomagala pri nastanku in ohranjanju fašizma. Posebno pozornost bom posvetilafuturistični avantgardi, ki je v svoji konstruktivistični inačici sevedaše posebno pomembna <strong>za</strong> Kosovela. Futuristi so si že zgodaj prisvojiliTrst kot radikalno moderen urban prostor, ki je bil kot takšen idealna tribuna<strong>za</strong> izražanje njihovega ideološkega in estetskega kreda. V svojemizvajanju se bom dotaknila tudi nekaj izrecno lokalnih <strong>za</strong>dev, kakršni stairredentismo, ki je težka dediščina risorgimenta, ter nerazrešena, <strong>za</strong>poznelanave<strong>za</strong>nost na romantično tradicijo, ki je bila vse do nedavnega hudobreme tržaškega pesništva.Generacija tržaških in julijskih avtorjev, ki so v zgodnjih letih 20. stoletjakulturno odrešitev in legitimnost iskali v Firencah, med njimi še zlastiScipio Slataper, je imela dejavno vlogo pri definiranju italijanske tržaške<strong>književnost</strong>i, kakor jo navadno razumemo. Od poznega 19. stoletja je vkulturi prevladovalo prepletanje konservativnega romanticizma in pozitivizma.V Italiji sta ti dve smeri ideološko in estetsko vplivali predvsemna pesnika Giosuèja Carduccija, katerega delo je poznal tudi Kosovel,in mu omogočili, da je kulturno legitimnost iskal v oziranju v preteklost.Nasprotno pa je posebna geopolitična lega Trsta omogočila nadaljnjo inveliko svobodo pri literarnem eksperimentiranju. Rezultat vsega tega jebilo neposredno prepletanje asinhronih kulturnih teženj. Nekatere predvojneavtorje, med njimi Slataperja in brata Carla in Gianija Stuparicha,je močno <strong>za</strong>znamovala kri<strong>za</strong> identitete, ki so jo občutili med eksilom vPrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka103
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAFirencah, pridružil pa se ji je skrajno individualiziran avtobiografski slog,ki je črpal iz najbolj obrabljene staromodne italijanske literarne tradicije;Ernestina Pellegrini je to poimenovala 'spiritualni enciklopedizem', v kateremso bili združeni številni heterogeni, včasih celo nezdružljivi kulturni inzgodovinski elementi. 1Ali je res, da na <strong>za</strong>četku 20. stoletja Trst ni imel ne kulturne tradicijene kulturne scene, kakor je provokativno napisal Slataper v pogosto citiranemspisu »Lettera triestina«? 2 Odgovor mora biti nikalen, saj mesto vtistem času nikakor ni bilo kulturna puščava: med drugimi dogodki se jeTrst ponašal tudi s prvimi futurističnimi večeri in prvo italijansko izvedboWagnerjeve Tetralogije. Kulturno življenje slovenske skupnosti, čeprav jebila to po besedah Marine Cattaruz<strong>za</strong> 'protikultura', je bilo živahno, o čemerpričajo gledališke, glasbene in pesniške dejavnosti, ki jih je podpiralNarodni dom, ter številne periodične publikacije, od Edinosti do Novegarodu in Ženskega sveta, da naštejemo le nekatere, ki so bile pomembne<strong>za</strong> Kosovela. 3 Slataperjeva izjava je <strong>za</strong>torej povsem provokativna, z njoje hotel vznemiriti okolje na kulturnem obrobju Italije, o katerem so menili,da je preveč pogreznjeno v trgovino in da si želi <strong>za</strong>gotoviti prostor vnacionalni sferi. Slataper in njegovi privrženci so upali doseči nacionalnointegracijo tako, da so se potopili v najbolj idealizirano in kanoniziranokulturno tradicijo, to je florentinsko. S tem, ko je Slataper 'vdrl' v Firenceskoraj kakor barbar, ki hlepi po civili<strong>za</strong>ciji, je leta 1909 pomagal vplivnireviji La Voce, leta 1910 pa prevzel uredništvo. 4 Po Slataperjevem zgleduje cela generacija mladih tržaških intelektualcev (že omenjena brataStuparich, Virgilio Giotti, Biagio Marin, Alberto Spaini, Gemma Harazimin drugi), ki jih je v številnih primerih prepričala preteča možnost, da jihbodo poklicali k orožju, v Firencah obiskovala univerzitetna predavanjain oblikovala strnjen krožek, ki je redno sodeloval pri reviji La Voce, inširila modernistične, proevropske teme, ki so bile sestavni del časopisnepolitike. 5Ta generacija je 'izumila' – kakor da bi šlo <strong>za</strong> resnično 'izumljanje tradicije'– tržaško literaturo v času, ko je bila zunaj Trsta, v Firencah, mestu, kije po njenih občutkih Tržačane zelo dejavno vračalo k njihovim domnevnimvseitalijanskim koreninam. 6 Glavni cilj te generacije je bil delovatikot katali<strong>za</strong>tor, someščanom olajšati odkrivanje njihove domnevno 'pristnetržaške duše'. Vendar je v resnici prevladujoča dejavna sila ostala toscanitàsodelavcev revije La Voce – in to skorajda ne glede na usmeritev revije, kije <strong>za</strong>htevala moderni<strong>za</strong>cijo in internacionali<strong>za</strong>cijo literarne kulture, ter navznemirljivo navzočnost neitalijanskih kultur v Trstu –, ki je legitimiziralain v Tržačanih podpirala prav tako močno idejo o zvestobi svojemu krajuin njegovim posebnostim. 7 Mistično in revolucionarno 'odkritje' lastne regionalneduše se mi zdi, pogledano pobliže, kot pesniška pretve<strong>za</strong>, s kateroje že izoblikovana toscanità postala vzorec <strong>za</strong> v veliki meri 'izumljeno' inizmišljeno triestinità. 8 Zmedeno mesto, iščoče literarno identiteto, ki bi jolahko imenovalo svojo, je bilo nedvomno občutljivo <strong>za</strong> <strong>razprave</strong>, osredotočenena predstave o znameniti, nesporni in predvsem edinstveni nacionalniin kulturni identiteti.104
Katia Pizzi: »Quale triestinità?«: glasovi in odmevi iz italijanskega TrstaIzjave, ki <strong>za</strong>govarjajo odločilno vlogo Trsta kot 'centro del mondo' [središčasveta], kot zgodovinskega sedeža konflikta med duhom težko opredeljivekulture in predmetom vse preveč otipljive trgovine, se ponavljajo tudiv Slataperjevem leposlovju. 9 V liričnem proznem delu Il mio carso (1912)»la storia è vissuta liricamente, perciò non compresa«. 10 V njem se <strong>za</strong>nimivoprekrivajo <strong>za</strong>pozneli sturmunddrangovski romanticizem, retorični vitalismo,ki spominja na D'Annunzia, in mistične splošne izjave o urbani modernosti'la città', in sicer kot popolno nasprotje pomanjkanju samo<strong>za</strong>vedanjaruralnega Krasa, pokrajine, ki jo Slataper obuja z veliko naklonjenostjo, aje v njegovih očeh tudi brez kulture in <strong>za</strong>zrta v pretklost. 11 Povedati je treba,da je Slataperjev Mio carso navse<strong>za</strong>dnje postal skorajda vzorčno besedilomoderne tržaške <strong>književnost</strong>i. V Italiji je objava tega dela domala ex novoustvarila literarno provinco in tlakovala pot <strong>za</strong> uspehe drugih pomembnihitalijanskih lokalnih avtorjev, na primer, Itala Sveva in Umberta Saba.Čeprav Slataper tržaških Slovencev 'nikakor ni obravnaval velikodušno',kakor je prepričljivo poka<strong>za</strong>l Boris Pahor, je ostala njegova vloga pomembna<strong>za</strong>to, ker se je <strong>za</strong>vedal narodnostne raznolikosti in vitalnosti Krasa(upoštevati je treba, da je bil Slataper nemara prvi tržaški Italijan, ki jepozornost – četudi pristransko – namenil Slovencem iz Trsta in <strong>za</strong>ledja),in <strong>za</strong>radi etičnih korenin njegovega evrofilstva. 12 Oba pojma je mogoče,mutatis mutandis, uporabiti tudi v zvezi s Kosovelom; primerjalne študijeo obeh avtorjih so dobrodošle, še zlasti, če osvetljujejo jezikovni in tudiširši kulturni vidik: Kosovel je verjetno dobro znal italijansko, četudi jeitalijansko <strong>književnost</strong> in misel spoznaval s posredovanjem, ne Slataperjain 'vociani triestini', ampak mnogo vplivnejšega duhovnika in humanistaIvana Trinka (1863–1954), uglednega prevajalca in posrednika med dvemakulturama, <strong>za</strong>tem tesne prijateljice in sodelavke Lepe Vide Mirijam (FaniceObidove) in prijatelja Carla Curcia iz Neaplja. 13Še močneje so vračanje v idealizirano vseitalijansko preteklost in naraščajočoprivlačnost domače tradicije občutili po koncu prve svetovne vojne.Zgodovinski dogodki so Trst ločili od njegove avstroogrske preteklosti,vendar so idealizirano dediščino monarhije vedno bolj cenili in predajali izene generacije v naslednjo. 14 Potem ko so dezertirali iz avstrijske vojske inse pod lažnimi imeni pridružili italijanskim četam, so Slataper in številni tržaškipisatelji njegove generacije, med njimi Enrico Elia, Carlo Stuparich,Ruggero Timeus Fauro, umrli v spopadih, tisti, ki pa so preživeli, so prevzelinjihovo dediščino skorajda nedotaknjeno in s tem poka<strong>za</strong>li, da se nisosposobni (ali da se morda niso pripravljeni?) ločiti od florentinske predvojnekulture in so jo še dalje spodbujali. Še posebno Gianija Stuparichaje preživetje vojne katastrofe, v kateri sta bila ubita njegov brat Carlo innajboljši prijatelj Slataper, navdalo z močnim občutkom krivde in sramu,<strong>za</strong> katerega se je <strong>za</strong>grenjeno spokorjeval z vztrajnim ponavljanjem tematikein sloga iz časa pred vojno. Stuparich s tem ni izkazoval le spoštovanjageneraciji mrtvih pesnikov, ampak je prispeval tudi k ohranjanju lokalnegaliterarnega dogajanja, s čimer je nevede krepil triestinità.Vsi vemo, kolikšen vpliv je imela prva svetovna vojna na razvoj Kosoveloveosebnosti, kakšne so bile izkušnje iz otroških let, ki so pustile v105
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAnjegovi poetiki neizbrisna znamenja. Zbirka pesmi La Buffa, ki jo je napisalGiulio Camber Barni v strelskih jarkih in je bila objavljena šele leta1950, priča, kako močan, četudi anahronističen vir inspiracije je ostal vTrstu risorgimento. Moralna in estetska vodila Barnijeve izpovedne poezijeizhajajo iz predvojnega iredentizma in iz splošno razširjene ideje o vojnikot socialnem in nacionalnem regulatorju. Ob številnih vojnih dnevnikihte vrste pa La Buffa vendarle razkriva, da se je Barni polagoma odrekelidealizirani 'pravični vojni'. Značilno je, da se vizije titanskega boja umikajovedno pogostejšim temam človekovega ponižanja, mržnje, bridkostiin razpadanju domoljubnih idealov. Zgovorni sta zlasti pesmi »Simone« in»Il capellano«: »Simone, amico caro, / purtroppo la guerra è finita. / Checosa ne faremo / di questa nostra vita.« in »Il cappellano militare / disse cheGesù Cristo / amava tanto la guerra. / Concluse: / 'Viva l'Italia! / Evviva S.Antonio!'» 15 Barnijeva poezija, v kateri odmevajo številna, Kosovelovimpodobna stališča, je zelo prepričljivo ujela občutje praznine in ničevosti,nemoč, antiklerikalizem, vse tiste dejavnike, ki so pripomogli k vzponu fašizma.Barni kot klasični vojni pesnik – v smislu jezikovnega in pripovednegarealizma – je odstranil vsakršno lirsko ali retorično okrasje: dogodki,ki jih opisuje, so vedno kratki in brez vsakršnih detajlov, vanje se spontanovključuje neposredni govor, pogosto z narečjem posameznega vojaka. Tudiprevladujoči epski ton izhaja neposredno iz italijanskega zedinjenja: značilnoje, da prvo svetovno vojno slavi kot <strong>za</strong>dnjo vojno risorgimenta. 16Eden izmed največjih Barnijevih privržencev v Trstu je bil pesnikUmberto Saba, ki je napisal iskreno in laskavo spremno besedo k zbirkiLa Buffa, objavljeno v prvi izdaji. Moj očrt 'položaja italijanske poezije'v Trstu bi bil nepopoln, če ne bi posvetila nekaj pozornosti tudi Sabu innjegovim zgodnjim pesniškim zbirkam. Saba slika rodni Trst kot stvarniurbani prostor, obdan s svojo lastno ontološko dimenzijo, gosto poseljens človeškimi skupnostmi, ki delajo, se pogovarjajo, jedo in se sprehajajo:kot mesto, ki vrvi od ljudi, živali in zgradb. 17 Sabove običajne poti vodijopo številnih starih tržaških ulicah, ki jim s tem <strong>za</strong>gotavlja literarni status:Via del Laz<strong>za</strong>retto Vecchio, Via della Pietà, Via del Monte, Via DomenicoRossetti. Navdih <strong>za</strong> poezijo je pesnik našel zvečine v svojem domačem mestuin izpričeval obsesivno, četudi protislovno <strong>za</strong>nimanje <strong>za</strong>nj; Trst je pogostoomenjal v pismih, pesmih in proznih delih, ga mrzil, ko je bil v njemin ga neizmerno pogrešal, ko je bil drugje. 18 Vendar <strong>za</strong> Saba Trst ni bil modernistična'ville tentaculaire' in ne futuristična dinamična metropola, ampakprej 'urbano podeželje', kakor ga je označil Russo. 19 Njegovi bistveniznačilnosti sta izoliranost in domači videz lagodne počasnosti, ki pesnikuomogoča odmaknjeno življenje, docela ločeno od sodobnih gibanj in šol.Saba piše o predvojnem Trstu, kakršen je bil pred uničenjem Cittavecchia:o mestu, skratka, ki še ni postalo plen zlega duha modernizma; in v tem jeSaba popolnoma drugačen od sočasne futuristične avantgarde, ki je slavilaTrst prav <strong>za</strong>radi nasprotnih razlogov, kakor bomo videli v nadaljevanju.Najpomembneje pa je, da je bil v tem pogledu Saba drugačen tudi odKosovela, pri katerem Trst obvladujeta lepota in pogubljenje, ki je sledilopožigu Edinosti (1925); <strong>za</strong>nj je to mesto, ki so ga oslabili močni emigra-106
Katia Pizzi: »Quale triestinità?'«: glasovi in odmevi iz italijanskega Trstacijski valovi Slovencev, ki so boljšo prihodnost iskali v Amerikah, Trst, kiizpričuje svoje 'bolno srce' (prim. še zlasti »Blizu polnoči«). 20V Sabovi zbirki Trieste e una donna (1910–12) je postalo mesto literarnilik s svojo lastno veljavo: je antagonist samega pesnika. 21 Njegov protislovniodnos do mesta se zelo pogosto kaže v primerjavah Trsta z ženskimi figurami,še zlasti z materinsko. O tem priča zgodnja eksperimentalna pesem<strong>za</strong> Bianco, ki jo je pozneje izločil iz zbirke Il Canzoniere. Materinski kompleksje pri Sabu tako močan, da lahko poezijo samo razumemo kot drugo,dobro mater, ki zmore <strong>za</strong>polniti čustvene vrzeli, ki jih je v pesniku pustilanjegova resnična, slaba mati Rachele Poli. 22 S Pellegrinijevimi besedami:»La poesia di Saba […] narra la lotta del poeta contro il complesso materno«.Trst postane 'mesto maternica', zgrajeno kot zrcalna podoba mesta vmestu: legendarnega judovskega geta Cittavecchie. 23 Znamenita pesem »Amia moglie« je hvalnica Sabovi ženi Lini, v kateri vidi arhetip vseobsegajočematerinskosti: sam pesnik je priznal, da se verzi berejo kot pesem,ki bi jo otrok napisal svoji materi, če bi mu bilo dovoljeno, da se z njoporoči. 24 Podobno kot Petrarkova Laura je tudi Lina konec koncev 'mati',vznemirljiv lik, ki se grozeče dviguje, medtem ko mesto polagoma izginja– kot da sta si Lina in Trst nasprotna in lahko eden preživi samo v škododrugega. 25 Predvsem v zbirki Trieste e una donna Saba raziskuje različnepoložaje trojice ženska – mati – Trst: pesmi »Trieste«, »Verso casa«, »Cittàvecchia«, »Dopo la tristez<strong>za</strong>«, »Tre vie«, »Via della pietà«, »Il fanciulloappassionato«, »Il molo«, »Più soli« upodabljajo Trst, prika<strong>za</strong>n kot simbolmatere. Vseprežemajoča razsežnost ostaja domačnost in prav pod krinkodomačnosti ima Trst v Sabovi poeziji pomembno vlogo. Na kratko, Sabovaintimistična, ojdipska, na mesto samo omejena obravnava Trsta se zdi zelodaleč od Kosovelovega družbenega in političnega spopada z mestom.Sabov poudarek na tolažilnem provincializmu domačega mesta nima ničskupnega s takratnim razpoloženjem glasne italianità niti z nacionalističnoin internacionalistično držo futuristične avantgarde. Močneje kot kjer kolidrugje je poskušalo fašistično uradništvo v Trstu institucionalizirati globoko<strong>za</strong>koreninjeno <strong>za</strong>nosno italianità. 26 Raznoliko in <strong>za</strong>pleteno etničnosestavo Trsta so na veliko izpodrivali z 'izumljanjem tradicije' in pri tem,denimo, bajeslovne rimske rodovnike pripisovali raznim italijanskim političnimelitam. 27 Prisilni jopič italijanske birokracije so vsilili multietničniin multikulturni identiteti mesta – velikokrat z nasiljem in preganjanjemslovenske skupnosti. Italianità, ki so jo često razglašali z dramatičnimi,mističnimi besedami kot fatalità, neizbežno usodo, in pogosto združevali sprav tako nejasno triestinità, je enačila raznorodno lokalno identiteto edinoles kulturno in literarno tradicijo Italije. 28Vsi ti dejavniki so prispevali k tistemu, kar je Ernesto Sestan definiralkot 'ipertrofia del sentimento nazionale', kot bohotenje nacionalne <strong>za</strong>vesti,ki so jo napihovali liberal-nazionali in jo v nadaljnjo rabo predali fašističnemuestablishmentu. 29 Zgled, ki so ga postavili z dogajanjem na Rekiv letih 1919–20, še posebno karizmatični vodja Gabriele D'Annunzio, jeprav tako prispeval k izenačevanju italianità z vzpenjajočim se fašističnimrežimom, ki se je vneto pri<strong>za</strong>deval utrditi na tem območju. Celo vrsto dvo-107
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAumnih, z italianità tesno prepletenih diskurzov (psevdoklasično obredje,upri<strong>za</strong>rjanje preteklosti rimskega imperija, retorika 'discorsi dal balcone'),so v letih 1910–1929 najprej preizkušali na tržaškem prizorišču, šele <strong>za</strong>temso jih sprejeli v preostali Italiji. Še odločneje je postala italianità sinonim<strong>za</strong> anti-slavismo; naj navedem en sam primer, to je požig Narodnega doma,hotela Balkan 13. julija 1920. Ne bom se <strong>za</strong>drževala pri obilici malo vrednepoezije, napisane in objavljene v Trstu, ki je slavila fašistični režim in njegovegavodjo Benita Mussolinija. Navedla bom nekaj imen in datumov, kerpač sodijo v kontekst: Alma Sperante (psevdonim Carla Mionija; 1871–1946), Corraj (psevdonim Raimonda Corneta; 1887–1945), Nella DoriaCambon (1872–1948). Značilno je, da sta Corraj in Cambon prikazovalaMussolinija kot katali<strong>za</strong>tor, ki je sposoben združiti tradicijo in modernostbrez protislovja: to je seveda paradoks, vendar pomemben, eden od tistih,ki si ga je fašizem sposodil pri futurizmu. Zmagoslavje estetike stroja in<strong>za</strong>četnega potrošništva, ki so ju slavili fašisti, spominja na <strong>za</strong>hteve, ki jih jenajprej <strong>za</strong>govarjala futuristična avantgarda. 30Na tržaški oder niso postavili le prvih futurističnih performanc v letih1908 in 1909, ampak 12. januarja 1910 v gledališču Rossetti tudi prvo pravofuturistično soirée. Kosovel, ki je pozneje občasno obiskoval gledališčeRossetti, je bil seveda še premlad, da bi bil med občinstvom. Leta 1908 seje Marinetti dejavno udeležil demonstracij v Trstu, ki so <strong>za</strong>htevale 'vrnitevmesta Italiji'. Skorajšnji vodja futurizma, »je govoril v Gimnastičnem društvu,<strong>za</strong>govarjal tržaške študente, ki so bili ustreljeni na Dunaju, in izjavljal,da bo imel Trst nekoč svojo univerzo […]. Vse dogajanje se je končalo zdivjim pretepom in Marinettija so <strong>za</strong>prli.« 31 Vendar je posebna futurističnaskupina v Trstu nastala šele leta 1922 (po drugih virih leta 1924) pod samozvanimvodstvom Bruna Sanzina (roj. leta 1906). Sanzin je uredil in izdalbrošuro Marinetti e il futurismo (1924) in v reviji Italia Nova objavljalfuturistično kolumno, ki je pozneje prerasla v poseben časopis z naslovomEnergie futuriste; urejal ga je Kosovelov prijatelj Giorgio Carmelich.Sanzin je v svojo poezijo vključeval dinamiko, hitrost, mehaniko in domoljubniheroizem. 32 V pesmi »Pensieri in libertà« je upodobil v vetru vihrajoče<strong>za</strong>stave v Trstu: narodnostno tematiko je tu prepletel z dinamiko boja,'la lotta', razumljenega kot bistvo življenja. 33 S slikovitim impresionizmomprizora, z vetru izpostavljenimi in barvno poudarjenimi <strong>za</strong>stavami, skupajz rabo onomatopoije in repeticije, se je Sanzin oddolžil futurističnemu ideološkemuin estetskemu kredu. Pesnik poudarja tako domoljubno kot tudiurbano potezo futurizma in jo še zlasti v zbirki 'aeropoezije' Fiori d'Italia(1942) prepleta z drugim temami, ki so navdihovale avantgardo – od dinamizmado energije in 'trascenden<strong>za</strong> artistica'.Tudi Vladimiro Miletti (roj. 1913) je brezpogojno sprejel avantgardo.Milettija so opisovali kot arhetipskega elegantnega in agresivnega futurista,kot »giovane poeta elegante, sportivo, aderente all'avanguardia più strepitosa«.34 V pesmih, kakršni sta »Pioggia veloce« in »Manicure«, privzemapoudarek na dinamizem in hitrost nadrealističen, ironičen zven: Miletti jeočitno prevzel futuristični jezikovni ikonoklazem in mu dodal lahkotnejšo,živahno prvino, ki spominja na poezijo Alda Palazzeschija: »Mi sembra un108
Katia Pizzi: »Quale triestinità?«: glasovi in odmevi iz italijanskega Trstatuffo / scagliarmi in macchina / nell'acquazzone, / mentre scodinzola il tergicristallo,/ lieto che piova.« »Le forbicine, beccuzzi ghiotti / di passerotti,/ sulle ciliegie / delle tue unghie.« 35 Značilen <strong>za</strong> tržaški futurizem, pa tudi <strong>za</strong>Milettija, je nespoštljiv, ironičen pristop. 36 Domoljubje je postalo drugotnegapomena, saj je prevladovala poetika nelogičnega in nedoslednega.Po Milanu in Parizu so futuristi izbrali Trst kot futuristično mesto parexcellence. 37 Trst kot mesto 'brez preteklosti' je bil povsem usmerjen v prihodnostdosledno urbane in mehanične modernosti. Vendar je dejstvo, daje mesto sprejemalo vse, kar je bilo modernega, skupaj z negotovostjo,ki jo je porajal njegov 'outsiderski kompleks', prinašalo nova protislovja.Navse<strong>za</strong>dnje so Trst spodbujali, da se je z nekritičnim navdušenjemše naprej oprijemal najbolj tradicionalnega literarnega izražanja v Italiji.Fašistična ideologija je tržaško italianità še nadalje združevala z modernostjoin s svojo lastno promocijo industrijskega preporoda, še posebejpreporoda umirajočega tržaškega pristanišča; to sodelovanje so simboličnoproslavili 20. maja 1924, ko so Mussoliniju podelili častno meščanstvo.Docela ločeno od zgoraj omenjene nacionalne ideologije so nastajaliposkusi pravega modernizma, bolj odprtega <strong>za</strong> evropske vplive in <strong>za</strong>to tudipomembnejšega, ki sta se jih lotevala Giorgio Carmelich in Emilio MarioDolfi. V letih 1922–23 je Carmelich sestavil brušuro Epeo in dadaističiEeet (ki je na naslovnici napisan z 18 e-ji), eksperimentalno 'anti-knjigo'(anti-libro), v katero je vključil note, risbe, svobodne besede in gledališke'sinteze'. Svoja eksperimentalna nagnjenja je Carmelich uresničeval v»Bottega di Epeo«, leta 1924 pa je tržaška revija Crepuscolo <strong>za</strong>čela objavljati'futuristično stran'. 38 Leta 1925 je Carmelich izdal revijo 25.Še pomembnejši in doslej sorazmerno malo raziskan je prispevek Trstah konstruktivistični izkušnji, ki v Italiji verjetno nima primere. UmetnikiMilko Bambič in Veno Pilon, Ivan Čargo in Avgust Černigoj so sodelovalipri reviji Tank in v Ljubljani videli zelo <strong>za</strong>nimivo središče. Zaradi zgodnjeganičejanskega prepričanja je verjetno konstruktivizem še posebej privlačilKosovela. Močan vpliv nanj je imel zlasti Černigoj, ki je ustvarjal vkonstruktivističnem slogu, z značilnimi svobodnimi besedami in tipografskimisinte<strong>za</strong>mi, s katerim je izražal <strong>za</strong>skrbljenost <strong>za</strong> svojo lastno nacionalnoidentiteto. Kosovel je šibal slovenski narod ter ga spodbujal k delovanju(prim. »Jaz protestiram« in »Rodovnik«) in razmišljanju o evropskiprihodnosti; to ga je seveda pripeljalo k načrtovanju časopisa Euroslave:Revue pour une vie neuve en Europe. 39Naj <strong>za</strong> konec strnem: skupaj z Borisom Pahorjem ostajam prepričana, daje najbolj temeljno modernističen in najdragocenejši pomen Kosovelovegakonstruktivizma v njegovem po humanistični, pacifistični in etični plati socialističnemprepričanju: socialna revolucija mora ostati konstruktivna inne destruktivna. Leta 1927 je Černigoj v Trstu objavil manifest »Gruppocostruttivista«: tragično je bilo, da <strong>za</strong>radi prezgodnje smrti leto poprejKosovel tej izjemni izkušnji ni mogel dati svojega prispevka.Iz angleščine prevedla Vera Troha109
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAOPOMBE1 Prim. E. Pellegrini, »Aspetti della cultura triestina tra Otto e Novecento«, IlPonte, 4 (1980), 354–71.2S. Slataper, »Trieste non ha tradizioni di cultura«, prvič objavljeno v reviji LaVoce, 11. februarja 1909, zdaj v: Scritti politici, ur. G. Stuparich, Rim: Stock, 1925,3–7.3M. Cattaruz<strong>za</strong>, »Slovenes and Italians in Trieste, 1850–1914«, v: Ethnic Identityin Urban Europe, ur. Max Engman, Strasbourg: European Science Foundation;New York: New York University Press; Aldershot: Darmouth, cop. 1992, 182–219(201). Prim. tudi: Boris Pahor, Srečko Kosovel, Pordenone: Studio Tesi, 1993, šezlasti 34–39.4Pojem ‘calata’(vdor) Slataper pogosto uporablja v najbolj znanem delu Il miocarso, Firence: La Voce, 1912.5V reviji La Voce je <strong>za</strong>čel G. Stuparich objavljati leta 1913: to sta bila članka ofederalizmu ter o češkem in nemškem narodu. Tudi prvi Stuparichevo monografijo,La nazione czeca, Catania: Battiato, 1915 je bila objavljena pod okriljem revije inje bila posvečena njenemu vplivnemu mentorju Giuseppeju Prezzoliniju.6Misel o ‘izumljanju tradicije’ je iz knjige The Invention of Tradition, ur. EricHobsbawm in Terence Ranger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Vintervjuju z Giorgiom Baronijem je A. Spaini izjavil: »La Voce servì come pontetra Trieste e l'Italia« [La Voce je bila most med Trstom in Italijo]; prim. G. Baroni,Trieste e ‘La Voce’, Milano: Istituto Propaganda Libraria, 1975, 91.7Ko se Stuparich spominja poznih nočnih branj Slataperjevega dela Il mio carsov Firencah, pravi: »[…] era proprio la scoperta poetica della mia anima triestina.[…] Io sentii, per merito della sua [Slataper] creazione, nascere il Carso dallaToscana.« [… bilo je resnično pesniško odkritje moje tržaške duše. Prav njegovi[Slataperjevi] stvaritvi gre <strong>za</strong>hvala, da sem <strong>za</strong>čutil, kako se Kras rojeva iz Toskane.];G. Stuparich, »Romanticismo e 'Il notiziario della III armata'», v: Trieste nei mieiricordi, Milano: Gar<strong>za</strong>nti, 1948, 29–39 (30–32). Za Slataperja in Stuparicha jeimela toskanska pokrajina celo značilnosti julijske: domača pokrajina seveda lahkomočno <strong>za</strong>znamuje oblikovanje identitete.8O toscanità revije La Voce prim.: Walter L. Adamson, Avant-Garde Florence:From Modernism to Fascism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.V delu Anni di Trieste, Gorica: Goriziana, 1989, 92 je Giorgio Voghera spodbijalmisel, da imata La Voce in tržaška kultura nekaj skupnega: »Non so davvero comenon si faccia a non accorgersi prima facie che la 'civiltà' triestina […] differiscedalla civiltà vociana forse altrettanto che da quella azteca. Di vero c’è soltanto chei vociani hanno aiutato molto i triestini.« [Res ne vem, kako da se že na prvi pogledne sprevidi, da se tržaška 'kultura' […] razlikuje od vocianske nemara prav toliko,kakor od azteške. Drži le to, da so vocianci zelo pomagali Tržačanom.]9Prim. S. Slataper, »L’avvenire nazionale e politico di Trieste«, v: Scritti politici,93: »Trieste è posto di transizione – geografica, storica, di cultura, di commercio– cioè di lotta. Ogni cosa è duplice o triplice a Trieste, cominciando dalla florae finendo con l’etnicità. Finche Trieste non ha conscien<strong>za</strong> di sé, finche gli slaviparlano italiano e la cultura si compie e si soddisfa nel commercio, nell’interessecommerciale, la vita è discretamente pacifica. Appena nasce il bisogno di unacultura disinteressata, la crosta fredda è rotta e si scoprono dibattiti ansiosi.« [Trstje prehodni prostor – geografski, zgodovinski, kulturni, trgovski – se pravi prostorspopada. V Trstu je vse dvojno ali trojno, od rastlinstva do narodov. Dokler se Trstsamega sebe ne <strong>za</strong>veda, dokler Slovani govorijo italijansko in se kultura izvršujein <strong>za</strong>dovoljuje v trgovanju, v trgovinskih koristih, je življenje kolkor toliko mirno.110
Katia Pizzi: »Quale triestinità?« glasovi in odmevi iz italijanskega TrstaTakoj ko pa se rodi potreba po nepristranski kulturi, se hladna zunanjost razbije inna dan privrejo nestrpne <strong>razprave</strong>.]10Anco Marzio Mutterle, Scipio Slataper, Milano: Mursia, 1965, 77. [… jezgodovina doživeta lirično, <strong>za</strong>to ni razumljena.]11Prim. Alberto Abruzzese, Svevo, Slataper e Michaelstaedter: Lo stile e ilviaggio, Benetke: Marsilio, 1979, 141: »Slataper […] partecipa ideologicamente almito di una società in ascesa. La macchina, il denaro, la merce, il commercio sono tuttecose fondamentalmente buone, per lo scrittore triestino: ma contemporaneamentesente il peso schiacciante di questa nuova dimensione umana che ha compreso edella quale è entrato a far parte.« [Po ideološki plati je Slataper udeležen v mituo vzpenjajoči se družbi. Za tržaškega pisatelja so stroj, denar, trgovsko blago intrgovina v temelju vse dobre stvari: obenem pa čuti nespodbitno breme te novečloveške rezsežnosti, ki jo je dojel in del katere je postal.]12B. Pahor, Kosovel, 48: »trattamento […] tuttaltro che generoso«. [nikakorvelikodušna obravnava].13Hvaležna sem profesorju Claudiu Magrisu, da me je spomnil na konferencov Trstu, ki se je ukvarjala s Krasom pri Kosovelu in Slataperju s primerjalneperspektive, čeprav nisem mogla najti nobene publikacije, ki bi bila pove<strong>za</strong>na stem dogodkom.14Po letu 1936 je os Berlin-Rim cesarsko preteklost Trsta izenačevala z nacističnoNemčijo pod splošnim 'germanskim' dežnikom. Takrat je postal Trst pravi branik,ki je hkrati z obrambo svoje preteklosti podpiral najbolj usodno politično in vojaško<strong>za</strong>vezništvo s fašizmom.15G. Camber Barni, »Simone« in »Il cappellano«, v: La Buffa, Milano:Mondadori, 1950, 197 in 156. [Simon, dragi prijatelj, žal je vojna končana. Kajbova naredila s tem najinim življenjem? – Vojni kurat je rekel, da je imel JezusKristus zelo rad vojno. In končal: ‘Naj živi Italija! Živel sv. Anton!’]16Prim. G. Camber Barni, »La canzone di Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri«, v: La Buffa, 170: » Il24 maggio, la notte della guerra, Giuseppe Garibaldi uscì di sotto terra. E andò daLavez<strong>za</strong>ri, che si beveva il vino; gli disse: 'Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri, vecchio garibaldino, Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri,vecchio fante, è scoppiata un'altra guerra, ma io non posso andarci: perché sonosotto terra. Camerata di Bezzecca, mio vecchio portabandieta, và te sul Podigora,e porta la mia bandiera!'» [24. maja se je v noči med vojno Giuseppe Garibaldidvignil iz zemlje. In je šel k Lavez<strong>za</strong>riju, ki je pil vino; rekel mu je: ‘Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri, starigaribaldinec, Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri, stari pešak, izbruhnila je še ena vojna, ampak jaz ne moremzraven: ker sem pod zemljo. Tovariš iz Bezzecce, moj stari <strong>za</strong>stavonoša, pojdi naPodigoro in nosi moji <strong>za</strong>stavo!] Povsem ogolela pro<strong>za</strong>ičnost razodeva, do kakšnemere je bil Barnijev intervencionizem pristen, pa tudi iredentističen, čeprav nujnokratkega veka, kot je opozoril Saba; prim. U. Saba, »Di questo libro e di un altromondo« (spremna beseda k zbirki La Buffa), v: Prose, ur. Linuccia Saba, Milano:Mondadori, 1964, 690. Prim. tudi pacifista E. Elia (1891–1915), zlasti njegovo vojnopoezijo, zbrano v Schegge d’anima, Pordenone: Studi Tesi, 1981.17Prim. E. Pellegrini, Le città interiori in scrittori triestini di ieri e di oggi,Bergamo: Moretti & Vitali, 1995, 57: »Trieste è per Saba […] una città concreta,particolare, piena di persone che lavorano, parlano, mangiano, e piena di animali edi oggetti particolari.« [Za Saba je Trst […] stvarno, samosvoje mesto, polno ljudi,ki delajo, govorijo, jedo, in polno živali in posebnih predmetov.]18Strnjen prikaz Sabovih raznovrstnih, celo protislovnih stališč do Trsta sempodala v: K. Pizzi, A City in Search of an Author: The Literary Identity of Trieste,London; Sheffield; New York: Sheffield Academic Press-Continuum, 2001, 67.19Fabio Russo, »Saba, le cose, l'eco, l'ombra«, v: Stelio Mattioni in drugi, IlPunto su Saba: Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Trieste 25–27 marzo 1984), Trst:Lint, 1985, 346–359 (347).111
KOSOVELOVA POETIKA20 Cit. v: B. Pahor, Kosovel, 43–44. Vendar se pokaže, da imata Saba in Kosoveltudi nekaj skupnih potez, na primer, rabo ritma in metafor, še posebej tistih, vkaterih nastopajo ptice – o tem prim. poučen prispevek D. Pavlič v tem zborniku.21Prim. številne pesmi v: U. Saba, Il Canzoniere, Torino: Einaudi, 1978 5 .Znamenita je primerjava mesta z 'ragaz<strong>za</strong>ccio aspro e vorace' [težaven in pohlepenpobalin] v pesmi z naslovom »Trieste«; v pesmi »Città vecchia« pesnik medsprehodom razmišlja o različnih človeških tipih, ki spominjajo na staro četrt:'prostituta', 'marinaio', 'il dragone', 'il friggitore' (str. 81) [prostitutka, mornar,dragonec, prodajalec ocvrtih jedi]: Sabova drža je razmišljujoča do te mere, da ‘nonsi attua mai la fusione […] di soggetto e oggetto’ [da nikoli ne pride do združitvesubjekta in objekta], kakor pojasnjuje E. Pellegrini, Le città interiori, 55.22O vlogi Sabove matere prim. zlasti: Mario Lavagetto, La gallina di Saba,Torino: Einaudi, 1989, 162–63 in Giacomo Debenedetti, »Saba e il grembo dellapoesia«, Galleria 1.2 (1960), 114–21.23E. Pellegrini, Le città interiori, 55 in 67. [Sabova poezija pripoveduje opesnikovem boju zoper materinski kompleks.] V pesmi »A mamma« iz zbirkePoesie dell’adolescen<strong>za</strong> e giovanili (1900–1907) je Saba naslikal spoštljiv, četudina trenutke naiven portret matere, ki obvladuje njegova širša psihološka in pesniškaobzorja (prim. M. Lavagetto, La gallina, 137: »La figura della madre si staglia […]come un oroscopo che accompagna la vicenda del protagonista, come un idolosilenzioso ed enigmatico che si innal<strong>za</strong> sulla prima raccolta.« [Lik matere se izrisujekot horoskop, ki spremlja življenje protagonista, kot tihi in skrivnostni malik, ki sedviguje nad prvo zbirko.] Pesem »Il bersaglio« iz zbirke Versi militari (1908) enačivojakovo tarčo z njegovo lastno materjo: streljati v tarčo pomeni znebiti se materein vsakršne strašljive sence, ki bi jo lahko metala na sinovo odraslo življenje (M.Lavagetto, La gallina, 157).24M. Lavagetto, La gallina, 89. Pesem »A mia moglie« je iz zbirke Casa ecampagna (1909–10).25M. Lavagetto, La gallina, 95.26Prim. Anna Millo, L’élite del potere a Trieste: Una biografia collettiva 1891–1938, Milano: Franco Angeli, 1989, 137. Na misel pride lokalna domoljubna pesem»El campanil de San Giusto«, uglasbena leta 1904, v letu Kosovelovega rojstva, kije tako kot številne druge poveličevala italianità; besedilo je napisal Augusto Levi,nav. v: Paolo Zoldan, Poesie patriottiche dei tempi passati: 1891–1914, Trst: ItaloSvevo, 1968, 55.27Podesta Valerio, na primer, naj bi domnevno izhajal iz Valeria Gens – prim. A.Millo, L’élite del potere, 137.28Prim. Angelo Ara in Claudio Magris, Trieste: Un’identità di frontiera, Torino:Einaudi, 1982, 1987, 17.29E. Sestan, Venezia Giulia: Lineamenti di una storia etnica e culturale, Rim,Edizioni Italiane, 1947, 402 in nasl.; nav. v: A. Millo, L’élite del potere, 140.30Prim. Ugo Sartori, Paolo Veronese in Gino Villasanta, Trieste 1934–XII: Lastoria, la vita, il domani, Trst: Comitato per ‘Giugno Triestino’, 1934, 64: »Lavita economica di Trieste batte con martellante caden<strong>za</strong> d’un motore e somiglia alturbinoso giro di un’elica. Motori ed eliche: strumenti e simboli della sua poten<strong>za</strong>.«[Gospodarsko življenje Trsta udarja v vztrajnem ritmu stroja in je podobnovrtinčastemu kroženju propelerja. Stroji in propelerji: orodja in simboli njegovemoči.]31Günter Berghaus, The Genesis of Futurism: Marinetti’s Early Career andWritings 1899–1909, Leeds: Society for Italian Studies Occasional Papers, 1995, 82.32Prim. Giorgio Baroni, »Bruno G. Sanzin e il ‘suo’ futurismo«, v: UmbertoSaba e dintorni: Appunti per una storia della letteratura giuliana, Milano: Istituto112
Katia Pizzi: »Quale triestinità?«: glasovi in odmevi iz italijanskega TrstaPropaganda Libraria, 1984, 243–51 (244): »Le opere del primo Sanzin […] sonocaratteri<strong>za</strong>te da tematiche ispirate ai miti futuristi: macchina, eroismo, patria,velocità, audacia; con una tinteggiatura del superomismo.« [Začetna Sanzinovadela <strong>za</strong>znamuje tematika, ki so jo navdihovali futuristični miti: stroj, heroizem,domovina, hitrost, drznost; obarvani z mitom nadčloveka.]33B. Sanzin, »Pensieri in libertà«, v: Il proprio mondo nei ricordi e nella fantasia,Padova: Rebellato, 1979, 68–69: »[…] garrire le bandiere su gli spalti della storia.Con tanto vento che le animi di ondeggiamenti schiocchianti, perché sen<strong>za</strong> ventole bandiere sembrerebbero mute. Con tanto sole che riverberi il tripudio dei colori,perché sen<strong>za</strong> sole le bandiere sembrerebbero spente. Bandiere di gloria, bandieredi fede, bandiere di tutte le vittorie. Simboli di eterna sfida, poiché la lotta è l’unicacostante della vita.« [… plapolanje <strong>za</strong>stav na okopih zgodovine. Z veliko vetra,ki jih oživlja z valujočim tleskanjem, saj bi se brez vetra <strong>za</strong>stave zdele neme. Zveliko sonca, ki odseva prekipevanje barv, saj bi se brez sonca <strong>za</strong>stave zdele ugasle.Zastave ponosa, <strong>za</strong>stave vere, <strong>za</strong>stave vseh zmag. Simboli večnega izziva, saj jeborba edina stalnica življenja.]34Prim. Marcello Fraulini, »Prefazione«, v: V. Miletti, Orme di impulsi, Trst:Società Artistico Letteraria, 1967, 9. [Mlad, eleganten, športniški pesnik, pripadniknajsijajnejše avantgarde.]35V. Miletti, »Pioggia veloce« in »Manicure«, v: Orme di impulsi, 68 in 72. [Kotskok v vodo se mi zdi, ko se med nalivom vržem v avto, medtem ko se brisalecziblje, vesel, da dežuje.] [Škarjice, požrešni kljunčki vrabčkov na češnjah tvojihnohtov.] Prim. tudi tržaškega futurističnega pesnika Maria Cavedalija, ki ga F. T.Marinetti omenja v besedilu »Battaglia di Trieste (aprile–giugno 1910)« iz zbirkeGuerra sola igiene del mondo (1915), v: Teoria e invenzione futurista, Milano:Mondadori, 1983, 245–53.36Claudia Salaris omenja nekatere nespoštljive vzdevke, ki so si jih izbrali tržaškifuturisti: Sempresù, Escodameè in Chissenè; C. Salaris, Storia del futurismo, Rim:Editori Riuniti, 1985, 245.37Prim. Roberto Curci in Gabriella Ziani, Bianco rosa e verde: Scrittrici aTrieste fra Ottocento e Novecento, Trst: Lint, 1993, 109; prim tudi Joseph Cary, AGhost in Trieste, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, 85–86.38C. Salaris, Storia del futurismo, 173–176.39Prim. B. Pahor, Kosovel, 69–70.• POVZETEKUDK 821.131.1.09-1(450.361)»1900/1920«:821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / italijanska poezija / Trst /literarna avantgarda / futurizem / literarni vpliviPrispevek se osredotoča na italijanski Trst in na kar se le da obširen korpussočasne tržaške pesniške produkcije, da bi tako razprl pogled na Kosovela “odzunaj”. Posebno pozornost sem posvetila futuristični avantgardi: Marinetti,vodja italijanskih futuristov, je v Trstu videl futuristično mesto par excellence,prve futuristične soareje pa so v Gledališču Rosetti prirejali med leti 1909 in1910. Futurizem je privlačil veliko skupino lokalnih umetnikov, med katerimije nekatere (Carmelicha in Černigoja) Kosovel celo osebno poznal ali pa so mu113
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAbili blizu. Podobno velja <strong>za</strong> pesnika Sanzina in Milettija, ki sta se navdušenopredajala futurističnim jezikovnim eksperimentom in narodnostnim oziromanacionalističnim tendencam futurističnega gibanja. V kontekstu tržaške poezijeje prav tako izredno pomemben narodnostno obarvan tip romantične poezije:komparativistična obravanava je ravno <strong>za</strong>to <strong>za</strong>jela tudi Slataperjev vitalističnipristop k skalnatemu Krasu izpred <strong>za</strong>četka prve svetovne vojne. V tržaškokulturno pokrajino dvajsetih in tridesetih let 20. stoletja pa sodi tudi nacionalističnapoezija, ki se je pogosto uradno spogledovala s fašističnim režimom(Cambon, Corraj, Alma Sperante). Prispevek skratka osvetljuje dobršen delpoezije v italijanščini, ki je nastajala v razburkanem, a v veliki meri sovražnemtržaškem kulturnem okolju, in na ta način ponuja bolj kot ne implicitno ocenoo Kosovelovem mestu v kontekstu evropske avantgarde in prispevku njegovepoezije k avantgardni umetnosti.114
ANALOGIJE MED POEZIJOS. KOSOVELA IN C. REBOReoziroma ali OBSTAJAITALIJANSKI EKSPRESIONIZEM?Darja BetocchiDržavni znanstveni licej France Prešeren, TrstNa vprašanje, ali obstaja italijanski ekspresionizem, sodobna italijanska literarnakritika odgovarja pritrdilno, saj pripisuje delom mladih literatov, kiso <strong>za</strong>čeli objavljati v florentinski reviji La Voce (1908–1914, 1914–1916) inki so <strong>za</strong>to znani pod imenom »i vociani«, izrazite ekspresionistične slogovnein tematske značilnosti. Kritika Cesare Segre in Clelia Martignoni trditacelo, da so »najboljši 'vociani' predstavljali resnično literarno avantgardopredvojnega obdobja.« 1 Navedena ocena – ki s tem, da označuje »vociane«kot »resnično literarno avantgardo« posredno izraža celo dvom o avtentičnostiostalih italijanskih avantgard – zveni pretirano in tendenciozno. Podrugi strani pa se poraja vprašanje, ali ni morda nekoliko preveč radikalnatudi trditev Lada Kralja, da »italijanska literatura nima nobene tekstualnebaze, da bi jo lahko označili <strong>za</strong> ekspresionistično.« 2V svojem referatu skušam vsaj delno odgovoriti na vprašanje o upravičenostioz. neupravičenosti zgoraj citiranih ocen o obstoju italijanskegaekspresionizma. Pri tem se opiram na komparativno analizo Kosovelovegaopusa ter pesmi in pisem milanskega pesnika Clementeja Rebore (1885–1957). Slednji velja <strong>za</strong> »enega izmed najvidnejših predstavnikov 'vocianskega'ekspresionizma,« 3 <strong>za</strong>radi potrebe po čim večjem kronološkem sovpadanjuanaliziranih del obeh avtorjev s časovnim razponom ekspresionizmapa sem pri Rebori upoštevala le pisma in pesmi, ki jih je napisal do leta1926 oz. 1927. 4 Vodilo moje komparativne analize je bilo seveda iskanjeskupnih in sorodnih ekspresionističnih prvin.Naj pa takoj povem, da – nasprotno od Kosovela – Rebora skoraj gotovoni poznal nemškega ekspresionizma. V 835-ih pismih, ki jih je napisal doleta 1926, zelo pogosto omenja najrazličnejše pisatelje in pesnike, a nobenegaekspresionista. Poleg tega pa sta se literarna izkušnja »vocianov«in pojav nemškega ekspresionizma razvila istočasno, kar – glede na slaboinformiranost italijanskih literatov o nemški sodobni <strong>književnost</strong>i – še dodatnoizključuje možnost katerega koli vpliva nemškega ekspresionizmane le na Reboro, pač pa na vse »vociane«. Italijanski ekspresionizem naj bitorej bil avtohton pojav, ki naj bi izviral iz iste kulturno-zgodovinske krize<strong>za</strong>hodne civili<strong>za</strong>cije, ki so jo <strong>za</strong>znavali in v svojih delih izražali nemškiekspresionisti.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Posebna številka115
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAKot je Kosovel ne le izpovedoval nelagodje tedanje »mrtve generacije,ki je v svoj mladi organizem vsesala glad in grozo vojne ter […] čuti v sebikaos«, 5 pač pa tudi eksplicitno, npr. v znamenitem članku Kri<strong>za</strong>, 6 povezovalrojstvo ekspresionizma s predvojno agonijo Evrope, tako je tudi devetnajstlet starejši Rebora ne le govoril o »gnilobi« tedanjega časa 7 in presunljivoopisal tragičnost predvojne generacije, ki ji je usojeno, da »znori ali pa da seekspandira v ogromno razžarjenost«, 8 pač pa tudi posvetil svojo prvo zbirkoiz leta 1913 9 »Prvemu desetletju XX. stoletja«. Pomen tega posvetila pa jeReborov brat Pietro osvetlil s sledečimi besedami: »Prva leta (20., o. p.)stoletja so predstavljala <strong>za</strong>nj (<strong>za</strong> Reboro, o.p.) […] mračno slutnjo polomav letih 1914–18, kajti ta datum pomeni propad nekega sveta […], strahotenorkan, <strong>za</strong>četek brodoloma vseh nas.« 10 Tudi Rebora je torej očitno povezovalgenezo svoje prve poezije s percepcijo krize predvojne Evrope.Podobno kot pri nemških ekspresionistih je <strong>za</strong>znava o razkrajanju <strong>za</strong>hodnegasveta tudi pri Kosovelu in Rebori tesno pove<strong>za</strong>na z dvojno reakcijo,in sicer po eni strani s polemiko proti sodobni civili<strong>za</strong>ciji, po drugi,komplementarni strani pa z občutkom odtujenosti od te civili<strong>za</strong>cije, in torejosamljenosti in samote, bivanjskega nesmisla, notranje disharmonije inrazklanosti, skratka t. i. disociacije subjekta.Kar se tiče prvega izmed teh aspektov, in sicer polemike proti modernemu<strong>za</strong>hodnemu svetu, se je le-ta pri ekspresionistih izrazila predvsem kot kritičenodnos do urbani<strong>za</strong>cije, tehnike in industriali<strong>za</strong>cije z mehani<strong>za</strong>cijo. 11V tem pogledu je morda tematsko razhajanje med Kosovelom in Reboronajvečje. Kosovel je namreč v svojih ekspresionističnih pesmih ali boljerečeno pesmih, ki vsebujejo ekspresionistične prvine (mislim na Konse),zelo kritičen predvsem do tehnike in mehani<strong>za</strong>cije, do modernih proizvodnihodnosov, ki privedejo do razčlovečenja človeka in človeških odnosov. Kotmanifest tega stališča lahko citiramo proglas Mehanikom!, ki naznanja smrtvseh mehanizmov in »človeka-stroja«, 12 verjetno pa ni pretirano trditi, da jekar precejšen del Kosovelove poezije <strong>za</strong>dnjega obdobja nastal iz podobnegapolemičnega vzgiba. V tem pogledu je zelo zgovorna npr. pesem Kons, ki se<strong>za</strong>ključuje z ugotovitvijo, da »človek ni avtomat« in da je <strong>za</strong>to potrebno uničiti»taylorjanske tvornice«, 13 ali pa nadalje pesem Kons: novi dobi, ki ponovnooznanja smrt »tehnično mehaničnih problemov« in »taylorovega sistema«,saj prihaja »nova doba […] / ko bo vsak delavec človek, / ko bo vsak človekdelavec.« 14 O podobni tematiki pa v Reborovi poeziji ni nikakršnega sledu.Kot izhaja iz nekega Reborovega eseja o Leopardiju (1910), se milanskemupesniku mehani<strong>za</strong>cija kaže predvsem v luči toge klasifikacije realnosti inkonformističnega izenačevanja idej in obnašanj, ki uničuje bogastvo insvobodo človeške ustvarjalnosti in ki je značilno <strong>za</strong> moderno civili<strong>za</strong>cijo. 15Vendar pa se odklonilno stališče do sodobnega sveta v Reborovih pesmihizraža predvsem v polemičnem <strong>za</strong>nosu proti urbani<strong>za</strong>ciji, proti turobnim,skorumpiranim, razpadajočim mestom, <strong>za</strong> opisovanje katerih se avtor pogostoposlužuje stilističnih sredstev deformacije in groteske, kar je sevedaznačilno <strong>za</strong> ekspresionizem. Motiv demonskega velemesta, peklenskegamočvirja, ki je s svojimi norišnicami, bolnicami, bordeli, ječami, kasarnamiin tovarnami utesnjujoči simbol smrti in pogubljenja, je značilen <strong>za</strong> nemški116
darja betocchi: ANALOGIJE MED POEZIJO S. KOSOVELA IN C. REBORe …ekspresionizem in ga najdemo predvsem pri Heymu, a tudi Werflu, Traklu,Lichtensteinu, Sacku, van Hoddisu in drugih. 16 Tudi pri Rebori je mesto,se pravi rodni Milan, predvsem v prvi, že omenjeni zbirki iz 13. leta, edenizmed osrednjih pesniških motivov z dvojno simbolno valenco razdvojenosti/konflikta na eni strani in osamljenosti na drugi. Citirala bom le dva primera.V pesmi št. XIV (Le poesie 1913–1957, cit., str. 27), je deževno mesto, vkaterem je življenje »v kletki <strong>za</strong>prta zver«, simbol tako pesnikove osebnerazdvojenosti med senzualnostjo in duhovnostjo, med »mesom in srcem«,kot tudi simbol konflikta med »gnilobo« tedanjega časa in neko svetlejšobodočnostjo, ko bosta iz propada in uničenja pesnikove generacije nastali»izbrano znanje« in »nesmrtna lepota«. 17 Mesto pa je pogosto tudi kraj tragičneosamljenosti, kjer se pesnik, <strong>za</strong>topljen v lastne papirje, z »mračnimobrazom« <strong>za</strong>man sprašuje o »resnici življenja«, medtem ko z oddaljenegavrveža mestne ulice prihaja njemu nedosegljiva radost »strastne pesmi« insmejanje »moških in žensk, / ki si med delom pripravljajo poželenje« (pravtam, LV, str. 93–94). 18 Omeniti velja tudi dejstvo, da so pesnikova urbanaprizorišča zelo pogosto označena s tipično ekspresionističnimi atributignilobe, razpadanja, sesutja ali pa nanje asociirajo. Za Reborov Milanin <strong>za</strong> njegove prebivalce so npr. značilni »gniloba«, »kloaka«, »blato«,»razbitine«, »nesnaga«, »garje«, »uma<strong>za</strong>nija«, »smeti«, »izplake«, 19 v pismihpa se milanski zrak »zdi <strong>za</strong>tohel in nečist kot bolničin <strong>za</strong>dah«, samomesto pa je prika<strong>za</strong>no kot »ogromen« in »smrdljiv vamp«. 20V Kosovelovi poeziji je ekspresionistični topos mesta prisoten mnogobolj bežno in posredno, predvsem z omembo posameznih urbanih elementovkot npr. ulice, kavarne, črni zidovi, hiše, tovarna, stolpovi (ki imajoobičajno simbolno valenco velemesta), ali pa meščanskih figur kot npr. kabinetniljudje iz istoimenske pesmi, bankir iz Tragedije na oceanu, frizerji,sociologi, analitiki, družbeni kritiki ipd., ki ponavadi predstavljajo razčlovečenegačloveka, kateremu se zoperstavlja novi, pravi Človek bodočnosti.In če je v Kosovelovih pismih Ljubljana predvsem mesto, ki ubija »s svojomeglo in svojo moralo«, 21 so v njegovih pesmih mestne kavarne večkratprostor osamljenosti in nekomunikacije (Vis-à-vis v kavarni; Dva človekav kavarni), prazne ulice simbol nesmisla (Večer pred zimo), hrupne ulice,polne hitečih ljudi, vzbujajo občutke odtujenosti in potrebo po odrešujočisamoti (Krik po samoti), tovarne in predvsem orjaška kolesja njihovih motorjevpa so simbol zmehaniziranega človeka-stroja (Ob orjaškem kolesu;Proti človeku) ali pa, obratno, predstavljajo gradnjo novega sveta (Alarm).Večkrat pa je velemesto z nihajočimi hišami in stolpovi simbol umirajočesodobne civili<strong>za</strong>cije, iz katere bo po neizbežni katarzični katastrofi nastalnov svet (Ljubljana spi, Ljudje s križi, O pojte vigilije, Modri konji, Iz tečajev,Eksta<strong>za</strong> smrti): »Slabi so bili temelji, dragi, / naj padejo stavbe!« praviKosovel v pesmi Rad bi upodobil. 22Kot sem že omenila, je bil polemičen in odklonilen odnos do modernegasveta, ki je bil značilen <strong>za</strong> ekspresioniste, nerazdružljivo pove<strong>za</strong>n zobčutkom osamljenosti, odtujenosti, notranje disharmonije in razklanostiter eksistencialnega nesmisla. Podobna počutja izražata tudi Kosovel inRebora, ki o tem pišeta v toliko pesmih in tudi pismih, da je človek pri117
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAselekciji gradiva kar v <strong>za</strong>dregi. Glede motiva tragične osamljenosti se bomtorej omejila na podobo drevesa, saj je le-ta v ekspresionizmu pravi topos. 23V neki pesmi se tako tudi Kosovel primerja z drevesom, ki med divjanjemviharja in šviganjem strel trepetajoče stoji »sredi polja«; enako osamljen sepočuti tudi pesnik, ki »stoji sam sredi vsega sveta / duše, srca, mu nikdo nepozna«, 24 v pesmi Daj mi bolest pa se Kosovel primerja s »črnim drevesom,ki je izgorelo« in ki je <strong>za</strong>to usojeno popolni osamljenosti in marginali<strong>za</strong>ciji,saj v svoji »ubitosti« ne more več šumeti »z vetrovi večernimi«. 25 Podobenmotiv najdemo tudi v nekem Reborovem pismu iz aprila 1910, kjer pisateljizpoveduje prijatelju svojo bolečino in samoto: »Trpel sem in še vednonepopisno trpim«, »počutim se kot drevo brez vej, ki je postalo neplodnoravno v trenutku, ko naokrog valovi pomlad s tisočerimi vabami in klici popreroditvi«. 26Z osamljenostjo je pove<strong>za</strong>n tudi izrazit občutek odtujenosti. Slednjegaje Rebora morda najbolj nazorno izrazil v poznem ciklu Curriculum vitaeiz leta 1955, v katerem pa je opisan, kot nakazuje že sam naslov, potek pesnikovegaživljenja do leta ‘29, ko se je odločil, da stopi v duhovniški stan.V 9. pesmi ali bolje fragmentu omenjenega cikla, se pesnik pritožuje nad»skrito napako«, ki ga je mučila že od predvojnih let, in sicer občutkom,da je »zgrešil planet!«: svet, v katerem mu je bilo usojeno živeti, mu jebil namreč popolnoma in brezupno tuj. 27 Pesnik in kritik Franco Fortini jeodtujenost, ki predstavlja eno izmed osrednjih tem Reborove prve zbirke,označil kot posledico »izmikanja realnosti«: 28 pesnikovo odtujenost povzročanamreč stvarnost sama, ki se mu absurdno izmika in odteguje, kotnazorno prikazujejo npr. naslednji verzi: »Oh spreminjanje stvari, ki jihgledam / in si jih želim! / Oh spreminjanje življenja, ki ga čutim / in si gaželim! / […] a kar me vabi od daleč, / se mi potem izmakne: / in ko gremmimo, mi ne ostane nič.« 29 Sicer pa je opis podobnega pojava izmikanjarealnosti in njegovih posledic mogoče <strong>za</strong>slediti tudi pri Kosovelu, npr. vpesmi s pomenljivim naslovom Sam: »Svet se je čudno daleč pomaknil, /blodiš in tavaš kakor izgubljen, / vse je odplavalo, sam ne veš kam. / […]O <strong>za</strong>kričal bi, da bi odmevalo, / […] pa se bojim, da sam bi ostal / s potisočerjenopraznoto.« 30 Kot dokazujejo ravnokar citirani verzi, je pri Kosovelumotiv osamljenosti in odtujenosti zelo pogosto pove<strong>za</strong>n s strahom pred tišinoali še huje pred konvencionalnimi in neiskrenimi besedami, ki jih pesnikobčuti kot najhujšo negacijo slehernega pristnega človeškega stika: ko»vsak <strong>za</strong>se / skriva poraze svojih iskanj« (Zbrani), 31 ko »govorimo <strong>za</strong>viti, /skriti«, ko »nismo odkriti« (Solze mask), 32 ali pa ko celo »sami ne čujemo /svoje besede« (Pesem iz kaosa), 33 smo si tujci, se pravi, da smo zgrešili prviin najvažnejši cilj Človeka.Od tod do občutka totalne brezciljnosti pa je potreben le majhen korak.V razglašanju eksistencialnega nesmisla sta oba pesnika radikalna indo krutosti eksplicitna: »Nič, obupen nič, / odsekan štor« 34 (A L.) praviRebora, ki med drugim tu spet uporabi ekspresionistično metaforo mrtvegadrevesa in ki mu Kosovel kot v nekakšnem idejnem odmevu odgovori:»Iskanje, stremljenje / <strong>za</strong>man« (Bedno življenje, I). »Iz tihe praznote rasteNič« (Večer pred zimo). 35118
darja betocchi: ANALOGIJE MED POEZIJO S. KOSOVELA IN C. REBORe …Toda bistven pri ekspresionizmu je predvsem občutek notranje razklanosti,ki izvira iz nerešljive disharmonije med pesnikom in svetom.Tematika razklanosti in disharmonije je ključnega pomena, saj je ravno takonfliktnost glavni izvor ekspresionistične umetnosti. V tem pogledu bompri Kosovelu navedla le dva citata: preznane <strong>za</strong>četne verze Moje pesmi, kizvenijo kot nekakšen programski manifest ekspresionistične lirike: »Mojapesem je eksplozija, / divja raztrganost. Disharmonija,« in nič manj zgovornoizjavo: »Konflikt bistvo umetniškega dela« (Mislim). 36 Tudi gledeRebore gotovo ne primanjkuje izjav, izpovedovanj in analiz pesnikovihnotranjih protislovij, ki so nedvomno tudi v tem primeru osrednja temanjegove poezije in obenem glavni povod <strong>za</strong>njo. »Protislovje« oz. »kontrastmed zunanjim in notranjim, med navideznim in bistvenim, med čutnim induhovnim, med omejenim in neomejenim«, je po mnenju kritika Vallijanajvidnejša »stalnica v Reborejevi poeziji«. 37 Za izražanje tega konfliktase pesnik skoraj obsesivno poslužuje retorične figure antiteze in, kot je vsvojem temeljnem eseju o Reborovem jezikovnem ekspresionizmu osvetlilkritik Bandini, predvsem primerjav, ki temeljijo na sopostavljanju abstraktnihin konkretnih pojmov. 38 Toda podobno kot Kosovel se je jedra in navdihalastne poezije <strong>za</strong>vedal tudi pesnik sam, kot priča pismo iz leta 1911:»Bijem se v nasprotjih, med večnim in minljivim, med tem, kar čutim (inljubim) kot potrebno in tem, kar bi želel, da bi ne bilo, med možnostjo inudejanjenjem, med obvladljivim in izmuzljivim, med kovačevo grobostjoin vzkipljivostjo nestrpneža. […] Če bom kdaj objavil svoje lirične fragmente– svojo grozljivo poezijo – boste v njih občutili vsa ta nasprotja.« 39Takšno, v marsičem ekstremno stanje disociacije subjekta je sevedaterjalo katarzično rešitev, le-ta pa v ekspresionistični literaturi odgovarjadvojni tipologiji, saj se izraža po eni strani v poveličevanju odrešilne vlogepoezije in preroške funkcije pesnika, po drugi strani pa v oznanjevanju <strong>za</strong>tona<strong>za</strong>hodnega sveta in rojstva novega sveta in človeka.Kosovel je temo orfejskega upora proti nesmislu in kaosu 40 in borbenobodrilnevloge pesnika obravnaval v številnih pesmih, 41 med katerimi je enaizmed najbolj izrazito programskih znana Stopil je pesnik mlad na Parnas,v kateri avtor poziva pesnike-marionete, naj stopijo s Parnasa, kjer je Mu<strong>za</strong>»v molk […] odeta«, in naj se borijo: »Jaz te kličem, poet: Stopi dol / medostre ritme, boritve, / prebudi, prebudi se / iz svoje tihe molitve!« V pesmiPred bariero je poziv k boju še bolj neposreden: »Bratje borilci, z manonaprej!«, istočasno pa citirani verz uvaja tudi motiv bratstva med Ljudmi (zveliko <strong>za</strong>četnico), katerim je <strong>za</strong>upana velika naloga gradnje novega sveta.Značilni ekspresionistični motiv novega Človeka in bratstva med ljudmi,ki izhaja iz strašne izkušnje prve svetovne vojne in ki ga je nekako anticipiralže Werflov pred in medvojni humanitarizem (v tem smislu sta zelozgovorna že sama naslova Werflovih pesniških zbirk Wir sind, 1913, inEinander, 1915), se je v ekspresionistični liriki izrazil tudi z opuščanjem<strong>za</strong>imka »jaz« v prid množinskega »mi«. To je opazno tudi v Kosovelovipoeziji, npr. v pesmi Naš spev, kjer je množinski »mi« zopet v funkcijioznanjevalsko-aktivistične vsebine o »himni boja« in o »strastnih«, »neukrotnih«borcih, ki jim v srcu gori »kaos ognja«. 42 Podoben premik izraža119
KOSOVELOVA POETIKAtudi naslov druge Reborove zbirke, Canti anonimi (Anonimni spevi, cit.),ki so izšli leta 1922. Folco Portinari je »anonimnost« Reborovih spevoveksplicitno pove<strong>za</strong>l s tragično pesnikovo vojno izkušnjo, ki naj bi »neizbežnoprivedla […] do preseganja osebne dimenzije« in potrebe po prikazovanju»vseh zgod in nezgod vseh ljudi tedanjega časa«. 43 Kar se patiče orfejske tematike, je le–ta v Reborovih pesmih sicer prisotna, a le kotnekakšen daljni odmev. V LXIII. pesmi prve zbirke (cit., str. 104–106) sonpr. pesniki definirani kot »borci« in »heroji«, 44 a celotna vsebina zveni vprimerjavi z resnično borbenimi Kosovelovimi pesmimi kar precej nebulozno.Tudi vera v preroško in odrešilno funkcijo poezije je pri Rebori manjprepričljiva in bolj abstraktna kot pri Kosovelu, čeprav je morda v pesmiXLIX (prav tam, str. 80–81) mogoče celo <strong>za</strong>slediti sicer nekoliko meglennamig na ekspresionistični topos odhoda na pot do velika cilja novega sveta:»O poezija, / […] ti si fanfara / si ritem poti, / […] si radost / ki dajepogum, / […] gotovost / novega dne.« 45Motiv poti je prisoten tudi v nekem Reborovem pismu iz leta 1921, v katerempesnik izpoveduje bratu, da se »mu včasih zdi, kot da ga nekdo kliče,a ne ve, ne kdo ne čemu; kljub temu pa se odpravi na pot.« 46 Zdi se torej, kotda je tudi Rebora občutil <strong>za</strong>vest o poti, ki jo mora prehoditi njegova generacija,kot da bi se <strong>za</strong>vedal neke velike naloge, ki naj bi bila <strong>za</strong>upana mladim,ki so doživeli in preživeli tragedijo prve svetovne vojne: »Ko v povprečjuse mi čas izteka,« pravi v pesmi iz leta 1926, »že čakam, da glas <strong>za</strong>doni /Clemente! Ne odlašaj! Začni! / Izpolni nalogo človeka…« 47 Tudi v tem primeruje mogoč paralelizem s Kosovelom, saj, kot ugotavlja Kralj, so tipičnielementi ekspresionistične predstave »velike poti« prisotni tudi v njegovemtekstu Spomladi odjadramo!, ki je izšel leta 1922 kot uvodnik v prvo številkolista »Lepa Vida«. Kraljev nadaljnji komentar glede omenjenega tekstapa lahko mirne duše apliciramo tudi na prejšnja Reborova citata: »TuKosovel verjetno ni imel nobene tuje spodbude, predstava (o »veliki poti«,o.p.) se je bržkone v njem razvila kongenialno, <strong>za</strong>radi podobnih (z nemškimekspresionizmom namreč, o.p.) duhovnih in družbenih okoliščin.« 48Sorodnosti družbenega in duhovnega konteksta ne smemo spregledati,sicer bi bile določene analogije med Kosovelovo in Reborovo poezijo resnerazložljive, predvsem ob upoštevanju radikalne različnosti ali celo antitetičnostinjune psihologije, svetovnega nazora in življenjskih izbir. Parabolaekspresionistične faze se kljub tem korenitim razlikam pri obeh avtorjihkronološko in idejno <strong>za</strong>ključi na presenetljivo podoben način, in sicer s prerokbostrašne katastrofe, iz katere se bo rodil nov svet bratstva. Še najbolj papreseneča dejstvo, da sta se oba avtorja osredotočila na motiv katastrofalnepovodnji: Kosovel v ciklu Tragedija na oceanu, ki predstavlja morda vrhnjegove ekspresionistične lirike, Rebora pa v pesmi s sicer zelo medlim naslovomVersi iz – verjetno – leta 1926 ali '27. Obravnavo motivno-tematskihpodobnosti med Kosovelovo in Reborovo poezijo naj torej <strong>za</strong>ključim s citatom<strong>za</strong>ključnih verzov ravnokar navedene Reborove pesmi: »Odtekle bodovode / z blagih domovin, / spregovorilo bo, kar zdaj molči, / razjasnile sebodo poti. // Iz stare snovi / nastal bo nov svet / […] Mnogo skrite dobrote /si ne upa na dan: / čaka, da se človeškemu odgovoru / odzove srce.« 49 Težkopričakovani človeški odgovor pa je seveda: bratstvo. 50120
darja betocchi: ANALOGIJE MED POEZIJO S. KOSOVELA IN C. REBORe …Sedaj pa še nekaj besed o slogovnih karakteristikah Kosovelove inReborove ekspresionistične poezije. Za Kosovelovo ekspresionistično lirikoso značilne razne retorično-stilistične rešitve, ki so dejansko tipične tudi<strong>za</strong> nemški ekspresionizem, kot npr. eksplozivne metafore, kričeči barvnikontrasti, raba čustveno nabitih, intenzivnih glagolov in nasplošno čim boljekspresivnih podob in besed, geminacija oz. podvojitev ali celo potrojitevbesede, sintagme ali celo ver<strong>za</strong>, hiperboličnost in še marsikaj drugega, 51 poformi pa so te pesmi še vedno tradicionalne. Resnična formalna inovativnostje namreč v Kosovelovi poeziji očitna šele v fazi Konsov in Integralov,<strong>za</strong> katere so značilni nominalni stil, katahrestična montaža in raba paralingvističnegamateriala; vendar pa Kosovel pobude <strong>za</strong> te prelomne inovacijeni dobil pri nemških ekspresionistih, pač pa pri drugih evropskih avantgardah.A tu me <strong>za</strong>nima predvsem Ocvirkova ugotovitev, da se Kosovel »odnemških ekspresionistov razlikuje po preprostosti in čustveni pristnosti, sajni nikjer nabrekel« ne »nasilno patetičen«. 52 Ravno v tem pa je tudi najvidnejšarazlika med Kosovelovim in Reborovim stilom. Slednji je namreč karse da nabrekel, pesnikovo izražanje je čim bolj napeto, prisiljeno, krčevito.Jezik je skrajno napet, sintaktično skrotovičen in morfološko deformiran;leksika pa je razpeta med stilistično ne<strong>za</strong>znamovanimi izrazi in kopico nekongruentniharhaizmov, dantizmov, tehnicizmov. Nasilje, ki ga Reboraizvaja nad jezikom, je v funkciji izražanja lastne duhovne razklanosti, takoda se bralcu zdi, da je jezikovno zmaličenje in izkrivljanje obupen poskusposnoviti, kar je duhovno, in poduhoviti, kar je materialno. Reborovi stavkiin besede učinkujejo kot jezikovni ekvivalent deformiranih teles in likovekspresionističnega slikarstva, ali pa kot stilistični pendant ekspresionističnegakrika. Potencialno pomirjujoči učinek tudi pri Rebori še tradicionalneforme 53 pa dodatno razblini bogat repertoar podob in metafor, ki odgovarjajoekspresionističnemu načelu estetike grdega.Na <strong>za</strong>četno vprašanje, ali obstaja italijanski ekspresionizem, lahko mordatorej na podlagi navedenega odgovorim na sledeči način: o pravem italijanskemekspresionističnem gibanju – v smislu zgodovinske avantgarde– gotovo ni mogoče govoriti, tudi <strong>za</strong>to ne, ker je bil italijanskim sodobnikomnemški ekspresionizem popolnoma ali večinoma tuj. To pa ne izključujeprisotnosti izrazitih ekspresionističnih prvin v delih posameznihitalijanskih avtorjev, pri čemer včasih presenetljive analogije z nemškimioz. slovenskimi ekspresionisti izvirajo iz skupne <strong>za</strong>znave kulturno-zgodovinskekrize tedanje <strong>za</strong>hodne civili<strong>za</strong>cije.OPOMBE1C. Segre – C. Martignoni, Testi nella storia, La letteratura italiana dalleOrigini al Novecento, 4 – Il Novecento, Mondadori, Milano 2001, str. 492. Prevodivseh italijanskih citatov so moji. Prevodi Reborovih verzov so zgolj informativni.2L. Kralj, Ekspresionizem, DZS, Ljubljana 1986, str. 72.3C. Segre – C. Martignoni, cit, str. 507. Med drugimi ekspresionistično usmerjenimi»vociani« kritika običajno navaja predvsem Giovannija Boineja in PieraJahiera, občasno in vsekakor obrobno pa Dina Campano in Scipia Slataperja.121
KOSOVELOVA POETIKA4C. Rebora, Frammenti lirici, Libreria della Voce, Firenze 1913; Canti anonimi,Il Convegno editoriale, Milano 1922; Poesie sparse (1913–1927), v: ClementeRebora, Le Poesie (1913–1947), ur. Piero Rebora, Vallecchi, Firenze 1947; LettereI (1893–1930), Edizioni di storia e letteratura, Roma 1976.Citati Reborovih pesmi so iz knjige: C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, All’insegnadel pesce d’oro, Milano 1961.5S.Kosovel, »Kritika, gibalo življenja v umetnosti«, v: ZD, III, DZS 1977, str.210.6Idem, str. 12–20.7C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, str. 27.8C. Rebora, Lettere I (1893–1927), str. 327. V izvirniku: »(Chi di noi potrà oavrà coraggio di rimanere), o finirà pazzo o espanderà un’enorme incandescen<strong>za</strong>«.9C. Rebora, Frammenti lirici.10Pietro Rebora, »Clemente Rebora e la sua prima formazione esistenzialista«,v: Clemente Rebora, All’insegna del pesce d’oro, Milano 1960, str. 88.11Prim. L. Kralj, Ekspresionizem, str. 41 in 167.12S.Kosovel, ZD, III, cit. str. 113–114.13S Kosovel, ZD, II, DZS 1974, str. 33.14Idem, str. 74.15C. Rebora, »Per un Leopardi mal noto«, v: Omaggio a Clemente Rebora,Bologna 1971, str. 153. Zanimivo je dejstvo, da je Reborova polemika proti mehani<strong>za</strong>cijičloveških odnosov in družbe zelo podobna izjavi Kurta Pinthusa, urednikanajbolj znane antologije ekspresionistične poezije (Menschheitsdämmerung.Symphonie jüngster Dichtung, 1920), ki je v spremni besedi pripisal natanek ekspresionističnegagibanja med drugim tudi »človeški ureditvi, ki je v celoti nagrmadenana mehaničnosti in konvencionalnosti.« (citirano v: L. Kralj, Ekspresionizem,str. 20).16Glede motiva velemesta v nemškem ekspresionizmu prim. Deutsche Groβstadt– Lyrik vom Naturalismus bis zur Gegenwart, ur. Wolfgang Rothe, Reclam,Stuttgart 1978, str. 14–21.17V izvirniku: »belva in una gabbia chiusa«, »il vario contrasto / della carne edel cuore«, »il marcio del tempo«, »un’eletta dottrina«, »un’immortale bellez<strong>za</strong>«.18V izvirniku: »ottenebrato / il mio volto«, »la verità della vita«, »canzone appassionata«,»un rider sento d’uomini e di donne / che nel lavoro preparan le voglie«.19V izvirniku: »il marcio« (cit., XIV, str. 27), »fogna« (X, 21), »fanghiglia« (VI,15), »sfasciume« (XXXVI, 58), »pattume«, »rogne«, »rifiuti«, »rivoli di spurghi«(LXIX, 114).20C Rebora, Lettere I (1893–1930). V izvirniku: »a Milano […], ove l’aria pareviziata e impura come il fiato di un’ammalata« (str.5), »Milano che pare ora unventre enorme; e pute tosto che si risveglia« (str.29).21S. Kosovel, ZD, III, cit., str. 339.22S. Kosovel, ZD, II, cit, str. 496–497.23Glede motiva drevesa v Kosovelovi ekspresionistični liriki glej F. Zadravec,Srečko Kosovel 1904–1926, Lipa–ZTT, Koper–Trst 1986, str. 81–83.24Kakor drevo, ki se strele boji, ZD, I, DZL, Ljubljana 1964, str. 127.25Idem, str. 367.26C. Rebora, Lettere I (1893–1930), str. 63. V izvirniku: »Ho sofferto e soffroindicibilmente«, »son rimasto come un albero sfrondato, che proprio ora si spogliae tutto isterilisce quando intorno gli fluttua la primavera con mille inviti e richiamidi rinascen<strong>za</strong>«.27C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, str. 278. V izvirniku: »guasto occulto«, »hosbagliato pianeta!«.122
darja betocchi: ANALOGIJE MED POEZIJO S. KOSOVELA IN C. REBORe …28F. Fortini, »Frammenti lirici di Clemente Rebora«, v: Letteratura italiana. Leopere, IV– Il Novecento, ur. A. Asor Rosa, Einaudi, Torino 1995, str. 246–255.29C Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, pesem LI, str. 87. V izvirniku: »Oh il variardelle cose ch’io guardo, / e le vorrei! / Oh il variar della vita ch’io sento, / e la vorrei! /[…] quel che da lungi m’invita, / va sempre più in là: / e nulla è mio al passaggio.«30S. Kosovel, ZD, I, str. 358.31Idem, str. 353.32S. Kosovel, ZD, II, str. 147.33Idem, str. 159.34C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, str. 181. V izvirniku: »Nulla, più nulla, /ceppo reciso«.35S. Kosovel, ZD, I, str. 261, 297.36Idem, str. 229 in ZD, III, str. 108.37D. Valli, Anarchia e misticismo nella poesia italiana del primo Novecento,Milella, Lecce, 1973, str. 288–289.38F. Bandini, »Elementi di espressionismo linguistico in Rebora«, v: Ricerchesulla lingua poetica contemporanea. Rebora, Saba, Ungaretti, Montale, Pavese,več avtorjev, Quaderni del circolo filologico linguistico padovano, Padova 1966,str. 3–35.39C. Rebora, Le lettere I (1893–1930), str. 105–106. V izvirniku: »Mi sbattonel contrasto fra l’eterno e il transitorio, fra quello che sento (e amo) necessario equello che vorrei non fosse, fra la poten<strong>za</strong> e l’atto, fra la cosa conosciuta e il lasciarlapartire, fra la rozzez<strong>za</strong> del fabbro e la permalosità di un insofferente. […] S’iopubblicherò alcuni pochi frammenti lirici – orribili come poesia – rivedrà codesticontrasti.«40»Kaos« je ena izmed ključnih besed ekspresionizma, vendar pa je v Reborovihdelih iz obravnavanega obdobja prisotna le enkrat, in sicer v krajši pesniški proziFonte nella macerie (Vodnjak med razvalinami, 1915), in sicer v stavku: »Obeliscodel caos, il campanile muto« (Obelisk kaosa, nemi zvonik«), v: Le poesie 1913–1957, str. 197.41Glede orfejske in oznanjevalske tematike v Kosovelovi poeziji glej. F. Zadravec,Srečko Kosovel 1904–1926, str. 117–122.42S. Kosovel, ZD, I, str. 230, 243, 228.43F. Portinari, »Milano«, v: Letteratura italiana. Storia e geografia, III, L’etàcontemporanea, ur. A. Asor Rosa, Einaudi, Torino 1989, str. 261. V izvirniku: »(lospettacolo tragico) può solo condurre […] a un superamento della dimensione personale«,»tutta la storia, di tutti gli uomini del suo tempo«.44V izvirniku: »combattenti«, »eroi«.45V izvirniku: »O poesia, / […] sei la fanfara / che ritma il cammino, / […] sei laletizia / che incuora il vicino, / […] sei la certez<strong>za</strong> / del grande destino«.46C. Rebora, Le lettere I (1893–1930), str. 410. V izvirniku: »Mi pare poi, avolte, d’essere chiamato, e non so da chi né per cosa; in ogni modo rispondo, em’incammino da qualche parte«.47C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, str. 190. V izvirniku: »Mentre lavoro neimiei giorni scarsi, / mi pare deva echeggiar imminente / una gran voce chiamando :Clemente! / Per un’umana impresa ch’è da farsi…«48L. Kralj, Ekspresionizem, str. 182–183.49 C. Rebora, Poesie sparse (1913–1927), str. 191–192. V izvirniku: » Decrescerannole acque, / emergeranno patrie pie, / parlerà ciò che più tacque, / si chiarirannole vie. // Il vecchio mondo disfatto / materia al nuovo darà / […] C’è tantabontà nascosta / che non osa uscir fuori: / attende s’aprano i cuori / a un’umanarisposta.«123
KOSOVELOVA POETIKA50Idem, str. 193.51Za analizo Kosovelovega ekspresionističnega stila prim. F. Zadravec, SrečkoKosovel 1904–1926, str. 123–135.52S. Kosovel, ZD, II, opomba na str. 647.53 Glede problema forme v prvi Reborovi zbirki glej P. Giovannetti, »I ‘Frammentilirici’ di Clemente Rebora: questioni metriche«, v: »Autografo«, III, 8, str. II–35. Karse pa tiče Reborovega jezikovnega ekspresionizma, glej F. Bandini, »Elementi diespressionismo linguistico in Rebora«.• POVZETEKUDK 821.131.1.09-1 Reboro C.:821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Ključne besede: slovenska poezija / Kosovel, Srečko / italijanska poezija /Reboro, Clemente / ekspresionizem / literarni vpliviNa vprašanje, ali obstaja italijanski ekspresionizem, sodobna italijanska literarnakritika odgovarja pritrdilno, saj pripisuje delom mladih literatov, ki so <strong>za</strong>čeliobjavljati v florentinski reviji La voce (1908–1914, 1914-1916) in so <strong>za</strong>toznani pod imenom »i vociani«, izrazite ekspresionistične slogovne in tematskeznačilnosti. Kritika Segre in Martignoni (Testi nella storia 4, La letteraturaitaliana dalle Origini al Novecento, 2001) trdita celo, da so »najboljši 'vociani'predstavljali resnično literarno avantgardo predvojnega obdobja”. Navedenaocena zveni tendenciozno in je verjetno ideološko pogojena; po drugi stranipa se poraja vprašanje, ali ni morda nekoliko preveč radikalna tudi trditev, da»italijanska literatura nima nobene tekstualne baze, da bi jo lahko označili <strong>za</strong>ekspresionistično” (Lado Kralj, Ekspresionizem, 1986).V svojem referatu skušam načeti vprašanje o upravičenosti oz. neupravičenostizgoraj navedenih ocen o obstoju italijanskega ekspresionizma. Koteksemplaričen primer (domnevnega) italijanskega ekspresionizma navajamenega izmed najbolj uglednih in tipičnih »vocianov«, milanskega pesnikaClementeja Reboro (1885-1957). Pisma in pesmi, ki jih je napisal do leta 1926oz. 1927, sem analizirala in jih primerjala s Kosovelovim opusom. Vodilo mojekomparativne analize je bilo seveda iskanje skupnih in sorodnih ekspresionističnihprvin.Zaradi potrebe po sintezi sem svojo <strong>primerjalno</strong> analizo z vsebinskega vidikaomejila na tri tematske sklope, ki so najbolj značilni <strong>za</strong> literarni ekspresionizem,in sicer: prvič, <strong>za</strong>vest o krizi in polemika proti sodobni civili<strong>za</strong>ciji;drugič, občutek osamljenosti in samote, bivanjskega nesmisla, odtujenosti, notranjedisharmonije in razklanosti, izgube identitete, skratka, t.i. »disociacijesubjekta«; tretjič, reakcije na zgoraj navedeno počutje, se pravi po eni stranipoveličevanje preroške funkcije pesnika in odrešilne vloge poezije, po drugistrani pa oznanjevanje <strong>za</strong>tona sodobne civili<strong>za</strong>cije in rojstva novega sveta ternovega človeka.Rezultati analize so poka<strong>za</strong>li, da so v Reborovi poeziji prisotne vse zgorajnavedene tematike in motivi; včasih je podobnost s Kosovelovimi pesmimicelo presenetljiva (npr. motiv katastrofalne povodnji in rojstva novega sveta).124
Darja Betocchi: Analogies between S. Kosovel and C. Rebore…Slogovna anali<strong>za</strong> pa še dodatno krepi tezo o Reborovem ekspresionizmu.Kaže pa, da Rebora – kot tudi drugi »vociani« – (nasprotno od Kosovela)ni poznal nemškega ekspresionizma. Poleg tega pa sta se literarna izkušnja»vocianov« in pojav nemškega ekspresionizma razvila istočasno, kar glede naslabo obveščenost italijanskih književnikov o nemški sodobni literaturi še dodatnoizključuje možnost kakršnega koli vpliva nemškega ekspresionizma na»vociane«.Na <strong>za</strong>četno vprašanje lahko torej verjetno odgovorimo na sledeči način: oekspresionizmu kot pravem literarnem gibanju v Italiji ni mogoče govoriti; mogočepa je govoriti o močni prisotnosti ekspresionističnih prvin pri posameznihavtorjih. Njihove včasih presenetljive analogije z nemškim oz. slovenskim ekspresionizmomizvirajo iz skupne <strong>za</strong>znave kulturno-zgodovinske krize tedanje<strong>za</strong>hodne civili<strong>za</strong>cije.125
SODCIDarja Betocchi poučuje italijanski jezik in <strong>književnost</strong> na Državnemznanstvenem liceju Franceta Prešerna v Trstu in se ukvarja z literarnimprevajanjem slovenskih avtorjev v italijanščino (<strong>za</strong>dnji prevod: M. Sosič,Ballerina, ballerina, 2005). Trenutno pripravlja doktorsko disertacijo, vkateri ob problemu prevodov Kosovelove poezije v italijanščino obravnavatudi njihovo recepcijo v italijanskem kulturnem prostoru.Marijan Dović dela kot mladi raziskovalec na Inštitutu <strong>za</strong> slovensko literaturoin literarne vede <strong>ZRC</strong> <strong>SAZU</strong>. Že kot študent primerjalne <strong>književnost</strong>iin slovenščine na ljubljanski Filozofski fakulteti je objavljal kritične esejein članke v strokovnih in znanstvenih revijah ter sodeloval na različnihkonferencah. Predvsem ga <strong>za</strong>nimajo sodobne sistemske teorije literature,literarno vrednotenje in literarni kanon. Zanima se tudi <strong>za</strong> zgodovinskoavantgardo (Kosovel, Podbevšek) in literaturo 19. stoletja (Trdina). Leta2004 je v zbirki Studia litteraria objavil teoretični prvenec z naslovomSistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Trenutno raziskuje problematikoavtorstva in razvoj vloge slovenskega literarnega proizvajalca odrazsvetljenstva do danes. Poleg tega se ukvarja z uredniškim delom, kotizvajalec in skladatelj pa tudi z jazz glasbo.Alenka Jovanovski, mlada raziskovalka na Oddelku <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> kniževnostin literarno teorijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani, je objavljalačlanke in besedila v različnih strokovnih in znanstvenih revijah, leta 2001pa je izdala knjigo Temni gen. V svojem znanstvenem delu se osredotoča naproblem estetskega izkustva v poeziji v pove<strong>za</strong>vi z mističnim izkustvom, obtem pa piše tudi literarne kritike, večinoma o sodobni slovenski poeziji.Marko Juvan je raziskovalec na Inštitutu <strong>za</strong> slovensko literaturo in literarnevede <strong>ZRC</strong> <strong>SAZU</strong>, profesor literarne teorije in slovenske <strong>književnost</strong>ina Univerzi v Ljubljani. Iz novejših objav: Intertekstualnost (2000); “OnLiterariness: From Post-Structuralism to Systems Theory”, ComparativeLiterature and Comparative Cultural Studies (2003); »O usodi 'velikega'žanra«, Kako pisati literarno zgodovino danes: <strong>razprave</strong>, ur. D.Dolinar, M. Juvan (2003); “Literary Self-Referentiality and the Formationof the National Literary Canon”, Neohelicon 31.1 (2004), “Spaces ofIntertextuality, the Intertextuality of Space”, Literature and Space: Spacesof Transgressiveness ur. J. Škulj, D. Pavlič (2004); “Generic identity andintertextuality”, CLCWeb 7.1 (2005). Ukvarja se z literarno in kulturnoteorijo (medbesedilnost, literarni diskurz, kulturna identiteta, literarno polje,kanon, literarno zgodovinopisje, genologija), z evropsko romantiko inslovensko <strong>književnost</strong>jo 20. stoletja.Matevž Kos je docent na Oddelku <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong> in literarnoteorijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Doslej je izdal štiri knji-
ge: Prevzetnost in pristranost (1996), Kritike in refleksije (2000), Poskusi zNietzschejem: Nietzsche in ničejanstvo v slovenski literaturi (2003), Branjepo izbiri (2004). Pripravil in komentiral je tudi nekaj antologijskih izborov(V. Taufer, S. Kosovel, F. Nietzsche, The Slovenian Essay of the Nineties,Mi se vrnemo zvečer: Antologija mlade slovenske poezije 1990–2003.Področja raziskovanja: Nietzsche in slovenska literatura, literatura in filozofija,modernizem in postmodernizem, sodobna slovenska literatura.Ukvarja se tudi z literarno kritiko in esejistiko. V devetdesetih letih je bilglavni urednik revije Literatura.Boris . Novak je pesnik, dramatik, esejist, prevajalec, mladinski pisateljter profesor na Oddelku <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong> in literarno teorijoFilozofske fakultete v Ljubljani. L. 1991 je bil gostujoči profesor <strong>za</strong> poezijona Univerzi Tennessee (Chattanooga) v ZDA. Doslej je objavil 61 knjig,med njimi številne leposlovne. Osnovna področja njegovega strokovnegadela so primerjalna verzologija (Po-etika forme, 1997, Sonet, 2004), srednjeveškain renesančna <strong>književnost</strong> ter simbolizem (Simbolistična lirika,1997). Njegove pesmi in igre so prevedene v mnoge jezike. Novak prevajaiz francoščine (S. Mallarmé, P. Valéry, P. Verlaine, E. Jabès), angleščine(S. Heaney), nizozemščine (M. van Paemel) in južnoslovanskih jezikov (J.Osti). Izdal je obsežno antologijo Moderna francoska lirika ter prvi slovenskiizbor lirike staroprovansalskih trubadurjev. Za svoje dosežke je prejelštevilna priznanja, med drugim Zlati znak Znanstveno-raziskovalnegacentra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti <strong>za</strong> znanstveno delo spodročja teorije ver<strong>za</strong> (1998).Darja Pavlič je docentka <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong> na Oddelku <strong>za</strong> slovanskejezike s <strong>književnost</strong>jo na Pedagoški fakulteti v Mariboru, kjer predavasvetovno <strong>književnost</strong> in literarno teorijo. Od leta 2003 je glavna in odgovornaurednica revije Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>, ki jo izdaja Slovensko društvo<strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong>. Objavila je knjigo Funkcije podobja v poeziji K.Koviča, D. Zajca in G. Strniše (2003). Raziskovalno se ukvarja predvsem zliterarno retoriko, romantiko, moderno poezijo in slovensko poezijo.Katia Pizzi je diplomirala na univerzi v Bologni in na Cambridgeu. Trenutnopredava na Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies, School ofAdvanced Study, University of London. Veliko piše o literarni, zgodovinskiin kulturnozgodovinski problematiki Trsta in severovzhodne italijanskemeje (glej predvsem njeno delo: A City in Search of an Author: the LiteraryIdentity of Trieste (2001). Ukvarja se s kulturnim spominom, nacionalizmom,futurizmom (zlasti z likovno umetnostjo in igro) in popularno kulturo(zlasti s stripi in otroško literaturo).Bożena Tokarz je redna profesorica na Inštitutu <strong>za</strong> slovansko filologijoŠlezijske univerze (Poljska), vodja Oddelka <strong>za</strong> literarno teorijo in prevajalstvo,raziskovalka poljske in slovenske poezije 20. stoletja. Ukvarja ses <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong>jo, teorijo literature in prevajanja ter zgodovino
poetike. Napisala je več kot 100 razprav, člankov, recenzij in literarnih esejev,objavljenih na Poljskem, v Sloveniji in drugod, in sicer o spremembahumetnostnih oblik v primerjalni perspektivi (mdr. v slovenski in poljskipoeziji), o teoriji prevoda, kulturnem dialogu v <strong>književnost</strong>i in literarnikritiki. Je avtorica več knjig, med njimi: Teoria literatury. metodologiabadań literackich (1980; soavtor: S. Zabierowski); Mit literacki. Od miturzeczywistości do zmiany substancji poetyckiej (1983); Poetyka Nowej Fali(1990); Wzorzec, podobieństwo, przypominanie (1998); Między destrukcjąa konstrukcją. O poezji Srečka Kosovela w kontekście konstruktywistycznym(2004).Janez Vrečko je redni profesor na Oddelku <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong> inliterarno teorijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani. Ukvarja se z zgodovinskimiavantgardami, zgodovino poetik, antičnim epom, tragedijo in romanom,literarno teorijo itn. Doslej je objavil več knjig: Misel o moderni umetnosti(1981), Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem(1986), Ep in tragedija (1994), Atiška tragedija (1997), Med antiko inavantgardo (2002, 1. ponatis 2003). V domačem in tujem znanstvenem instrokovnem tisku je objavil več kot 200 naslovov in sodeloval na številnihdomačih in tujih znanstvenih srečanjih. Več kot dve leti je študijsko in kotgostujoči profesor prebil na tujih univer<strong>za</strong>h (München, Salzburg, Bruselj,Dunaj, Katowice).
KOSOVEL’S POETICSEdited byJanez VrečkoBoris A. NovakDarja Pavlič
ContentsBoris A. Novak:kosovel, a great poet with the poor prosody ...................................... 133Darja Pavlič:kosovel and modern poetry: an analysis of imagery ......................... 145Bożena Tokarz:The Idea behind the Integrals in Kosovel’s Poetry ............................. 163Janez Vrečko:Srečko Kosovel and the European avant-garde ................................... 175Marko Juvan:Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernism ................................ 189Marijan Dović:The Canonisation of an ‘Absent’AuthorAuthor .............................................. 205Matevž Kos:Kosovel and Nihilism: An Attemptat Constructive Deconstruction ............................................................ 215Alenka Jovanovski:Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems: an Uneasy Balancebetween Individuum and Society ......................................................... 225Katia Pizzi:‘quale triestinità?’: voices and echoes from italian trieste ................ 239Darja Betocchi:Analogies between S. Kosovel and C. Rebora, or:Is There Such a Thing as Italian Expressionism? ................................. 251
editors’ prefaceBefore his tragic death at only 22, Srečko Kosovel (1904-1926) createdan extraordinarily rich poetic opus, ranging from mellow, late symbolistpoems, celebrating the beauty of his native Karst landscape, to radical experimentswith poetic language, parallel to futurism, constructivism anddadaism; it encompasses the articulation of profound and painful existentialexperience and direct political messages prophesying the brotherhoodof humanity and all things under the stars.In September 2004, to honour the centennial of the poet’s birth, theSlovenian Comparative Literature Association and the Department ofComparative Literature and Literary Theory at the Faculty of Arts organiseda symposium, as part of the Vilenica International Literature Festival.We would like to thank the organisers of this important event for kindlyinviting, for the second year running, literary historians to Lipica, to theKarst, which every autumn hosts masters of the poetic word. The constructivecontributions and the animated discussion that followed haveconfirmed our belief that Kosovel’s poetics is exciting, contemporary andworthy of in-depth analyses. The contributors kindly responded to our invitationto expand their papers and adapt them for publication in a specialissue of Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>. Besides the contributors, there are otherswho helped make this possible, to whom we extend our warm gratitude:Katarina Jerin and Ana Jelnikar translated not only the papers, but alsoquotations from Kosovel’s; Philip Burt acted as lector; the two Sloveniantexts were translated by Vera Troha and Niko Jež; Alenka Maček preparedthe publication for print; Seta Knop contributed publication data. We wouldalso like to thank the Scientific Institute of the Faculty of Arts, the Ministryof Culture, and the Slovenian Writers Association for their financial supportfor this publication, which we hope will make Kosovel’s poetics moreaccessible to non-Slovenian readers and researchers.* * *The studies on the following pages approach different aspects of Kosovel’screativity: the analyses of verse, imagery and avant-garde poetic para-gen-
es are followed by papers discussing the problems of situating the poetwithin literary history and the literary canon, the poet’s attitude towardsnihilism, and readers’ responses; the two closing papers examine Kosovel’spoetics by placing it in the context of the simultaneous Italian, and particularlyTriestine, literary scene.In his analysis of Kosovel’s verse, Boris . Novak argues that the youngpoet, who had an inborn ear for rhythm, but was not a skilful prosodist,overcame this shortcoming in his verse by turning his errors to his advantage.Darja Pavlič examines the imagery in Kosovel’s poetry, and concludingthat it is for the most part romantic, realist, and expressionist, whereasmodern figures of speech are relatively rare. In her paper, Bożena Tokarzfocuses on the recognisable characteristics of the two poetic para-genres -the cons poems and Integrals - that Kosovel introduced. The discussion byJanez Vrečko explores the poet’s guarded attitude towards Italian futurismand Balkan zenitism, characterising his famous cons poems as unique, andone of the pinnacles of European literary constructivism. In the hybrid copresenceof the Kosovel’s diverse poetics, Marko Juvan has recognisedan important symptom of modernism - modernist multilingualism, relativism,ambivalence, presentism and perspectivism. Marijan Dović explainshow a primary role in the canonisation of Kosovel was played by other actorsin the literary system, because the author left no clear plans about hislegacy. Matevž Kos maintains that Nietzsche was not a key person to openthe doors to Kosovel’s poetic world. Contrary to the philosopher, the poetargues for an emphasised ethical and moral stance, because people haverepeatedly to choose between good and evil, right and wrong. In her paper,Alenka Jovanovski examines the communicative function of the aestheticexperience and explores how Kosovel directs the reader towards a sociallyactive role. The contribution by Katia Pizzi focuses on a wide range poetryproduced in contemporary Trieste, thereby assessing Kosovel’s positionwithin the context of the European avant-garde. On the basis of a comparativeanalysis of Kosovel’s work, and the poems and letters of the Milanesepoet Clemente Rebora (1885-1957), Darja Betocchi argues that we cannotspeak of a proper expressionist movement in Italy.The editors
KOSOVEL: A GREAT POETBUT A POOR PROSODISTBoris A. NovakFaculty of Arts, Ljubljana, SloveniaKosovel’s early poetry – and it is debatable whether the literary historicistterm “early poetry” is at all fitting for a poet who died at the age of twentytwoand left behind such a vast opus – offers excellent materials for ananalysis of the loosening and deterioration of the traditional metrical structuresinto free verse. The young poet was visibly making an effort to keepversification in check, but it kept slipping out of his control; he was desperatelytrying to accommodate his inner sense of poetic rhythm to rigorousprosodic designs, but his verses stand awkwardly beside the traditionalmetrical line; and rhyme to him was still an indispensable mark of the sheerpoetic quality of a poetic text, but only rarely did he rhyme in a way thatwas entirely satisfying to the ear. In the whole history of Slovenian poetrythere is not a more drastic instance of a “crisis in verse”, to use Mallarmé’sformulation. What is a gifted young poet to do if he is not in command ofthe material of his art, poetic language? He must create a new language, buthow? By turning flaws into virtues, defects into strengths, and by forging anew vigour out of shortcomings.When we speak of faults, we can only do so against the backdrop of a definedsystem of rules. Moreover: faults as such are the outcome of a rule putinto effect. A very simple truth follows from this: if we make a mistake in agiven system, the most effective way to neutralise it is to repeat it. A repeatedmistake is no longer a mistake; it is already a system. At the start of his poeticadventure Kosovel intuitively adhered precisely to this artistic strategy:repeating mistakes. Fashioning an artistic truth out of a formal flaw!A beginner cannot find fresh new rhymes, so he keeps repeating thesame rhyming pairs, or even resorts to repeating the same words, a procedurethat was strongly discouraged by traditional poetics, which saw init simple mechanical repetition. In Kosovel’s poem Vas <strong>za</strong> bori (VillageBehind the Pines) such repetition paradoxically enhances the meaning ofa poem.V oklepu zelenih borovih rokbela, <strong>za</strong>prašena vas,poldremajoča vaskot ptica v varnem gnezdu rok.Clasped in green pine handsa white, dusty village,a half-drowsing village,like a bird in a safe nest of hands.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue133
KOSOVEL’s poeticsSredi dehtečih borov postanem:Ni to objem mojih rok?Velik objem, velik obok<strong>za</strong> takó majhno gručo otrok.Amid the fragrant pine trees I halt:Is this not the embrace of my own hands?a big embrace, a great archAfor such a small group of children.Za zidom cerkvenim je pokopanSomeone is behind the church walnekdo. Na grobu šipek cveté.On his grave a briar blossoms.Iz bele vasi bele poti – From the white village, white paths –in vse te poti v moje srce and all these paths lead to my heart. 1The words hands and village are repeated more than once in the verseendings as rhyming words; the repeated words thus enter different semanticcontexts and develop a set of semantic connotations that broaden the thematicfield of these worn-out words far beyond the traditional Weltschmer<strong>za</strong>nd its related poetics. Later, I will analyse this procedure to establish thatwhat in fact we are dealing with is a quite singular re-animation of the troubadourprinciple of what I have referred to as final/key words.Only Srečko Kosovel can get away with a word like “bolest” (“grief”,“affliction”, “sorrow”) in his poetry. With any other poet this word is so“heavy” it is unpalatable. Only in Kosovel’s usage is it semantically richand diverse enough to be positively fresh. Poetic sound is always the productof meaning. Let us look at the introductory stan<strong>za</strong> in the poem Slutnja(A Premonition):Polja.Podrtija ob cestiTema.Tišina bolesti.Fields.A wrecked house by the road.Darkness.The silence of grief.Most of Kosovel’s early poems, which Slovenian literary history hassomewhat loosely labelled “impressionist lyrical poetry”, formally fallwithin the framework of traditional versification; more precisely: they belongto the period of its disintegration and demise. These texts follow formalmetrical structures based on the rules of the accentual-syllabic versification,but which have already been significantly relaxed and are leaningtowards free verse.These poems are marked by simplicity of poetic language: verse rhythmis derivative of the most common and popular metres borrowed from longtradition, euphony is characterised by hackneyed rhymes, and the poemsemploy the most common stan<strong>za</strong> structures. Quatrains top the list, andKosovel seems particularly fond of joining three quatrains into a poem,this being the form he employs most frequently.1All the translations of Kosovel’s poems in this paper were made with the aim offacilitating the reader’s understanding of the content of Srečko’s poems, but not therhyme and metre. They have no pretentions to literary merit and should not be readas Kosovel’s poems translated into English. In order for this paper to make sense toan English reader, I was obliged to keep to the original syntax as closely as possible,and did so as long as this was still within bounds of intelligibility. Rendering theformal properties of the poems in translation, assuming this could even be done,would inevitably change the content of the original poems to such an extent thatmany of the points made by the author of this text would be lost.134
oris a. novak: KOSOVEL: A GREAT POET BUT A POOR PROSODISTA careful assessment of the rhythms in these poems gives a highly diversifiedpicture: a more or less equal predisposition to trochaic and iambic metres,and frequent use of a trisyllabic foot, which is less usual in Slovenianpoetry (dactyls, amphibrachs, and even anapests, very rarely be found inSlovenian poetry, since few Slovenian words support the anapest stress pattern).Thevariability of the rhythm within a poem or even within a single linerenders the traditional tool of metre in the case of Kosovel’s poetry largelyuseless; it seems more appropriate to adopt the term metrical impulse, whichallows for rhythmic variation, deviation from, and even violation of, theoriginal metrical scheme. In many poems, the metre, or rather, the metricalimpulse changes from one line to the next: the scansion of one line of versereveals a regular rhythm, but already in the next line the rhythm changes,although it may still be metrically regular. Such texts are therefore isometricon the level of individual verse lines and polymetric on the level of the poemas a whole. The rhythm of a large number of Kosovel’s poems constantlychanges, even within one line, so that a metrical analysis is futile.The underlying principle of traditional versification is the subordinationof syntax to external, metrical criteria; or to put it simply, the sentenceneeds to yield to the limitations imposed by the metrical scheme (stresspattern, number of syllables, etc.). When after a long stretch of domination,at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, metrical versehad run its course and was beginning to wear down to a cliché, poets wereovercome by the need to break out of standard moulds that were stiflingliving inspiration. (I have deliberately used the traditional, rather sentimentalword inspiration, because etymologically it stems from the Latin rootspirare (= to breathe), suggesting the rhythm of lungs, blood, heart andbody.) But the collapse of metrical rules, in fact, leads to the collapse of poeticlanguage. In the organism of a line there emerges a structural vacuum,because the verse line is no longer organised by metrical laws and rules. Ina sense, a regular metrical line constantly draws attention to its own poeticqualities, we could say, “sings out”: I am not prose, I am verse. The signalsof the poetic qualities in the traditional verse are regular (metrically organised)rhythm, the “jingle” of rhymes in verse endings, etc. How is a verseto prove that it is a verse, that it belongs to elevated poetry and not banalprose, if it has turned its back on its most powerful tool? The crisis of metrethus calls for a new organisational and ordering principle, a new mannerof generating rhythm. The primary metre-forging function is now takenover by syntax. This development is demonstrated vividly by Kosovel’s“impressionist” lyrics. In fact, it makes for the best case study within theentire history of Slovenian poetry, perhaps, to observe and understand thetectonic shift, the dramatic and far-reaching transition, from traditional metreinto free verse.The term free verse is dangerously misleading, suggesting as it does theillusion of complete artistic freedom, which is simply not possible in thedomain of poetic language. A verse is invariably constituted through strongrhythm, be it metrically organised or organised in some other way, or it isnot a verse.135
KOSOVEL’s poeticsRather than repeating rhythmic and euphonious (sound) patterns characteristicof traditional verse, free verse is based on the repetition of syntacticunits and words or phrases, very often functioning as rhetorical figures ofanaphora (the repetition of the same words at the beginning of lines or sentences)and epiphora (the same procedure at the end of lines or sentences).This way of rhythmically organisatiing a line, syntactic parallelism, is ineffect the same as the ancient – historically the earliest – principle of poeticlanguage, which has come down to us, for instance, through the marvellouspsalms of the Old Testament. In Kosovel’s psalm-like sonnet Želja po smrti(Longing for Death), the anaphora Daj (literally = “give”or “let”, but herebest translated as “grant”) is repeated as many as seven times in the introductoryline with the phrase, Daj mi, Bog (Grant me, God):Daj mi, Bog, da mogel bi umreti,tiho potopiti se v temò,še enkrat kot zvezda <strong>za</strong>žareti,onemeti, pasti v črno dno,kjer nikogar ni in kjer ne svetiniti ena luč in ni težkóčakati poslednjih razodetij,kar od vekomaj je sojeno biló.Daj, da stopim stran izmed ljudi,daj, da stopim in da se ne vrnem,daj mi milost: temò, ki teší,da v bolečini s Tabo se strnem,daj, da odidem od teh ljudi,daj, da odidem in da se ne vrnem.Grant me, God, that I should die,quietly sink into the dark,once again like a star blaze forth,grow silent, fall to the black rock bottom,Where there is no one and nothing shinesnot a single light and where it is not difficultto wait for the final revelations,because for ever it has been destined thus.Grant me that I should step aside from people,grant me make this step, and never return,grant me mercy: darkness which consoles,so that in pain with You I merge,grant me that I leave these people,grant me that I leave, and never return.An analysis of this poem reveals that a trochaic metrical pulse is underminedthree times with iambically intoned lines. It also demonstratesa procedure that is commonly observed in Kosovel: the loosening or evenviolation of the metrical scheme established at the beginning of the poem.A rhythm that pulsates and inspired cannot but steer the poet away frommetrical dictates and limitations.Particularly interesting is Kosovel’s use of rhyme: in all honesty, hisrhyming dictionary is extremely poor, with a prevalence of the so-calledverbal rhymes. (Of all the parts of speech in the Slovenian language, verbsare the easiest to rhyme because of their corresponding inflections, andeasily-formed rhymes tend to be semantically – and thereby also musically– poor.) It is as if Kosovel were endlessly repeating rhymes he had learntfrom the poetic canon of 19 th -century Slovenian poetry. For any other, lesstalented poet of Kosovel’s time, drawing on such a familiar and worn-outdomestic stock of rhyme endings would be a sign of grossly sentimentaland conservative poetics. Not so with Kosovel: in his verses, these rhymes,a hundred times used and abused, suddenly ring out in a different, fresh,and artistically authentic way. A silent, but a deep and far-reaching breakwas effected within traditional versification: even those inherited rhythmsand rhymes were now endowed with new sound and meaning through thedifferent use of poetic language (for in poetry, sound and meaning are alwaysclosely bound together).136
oris a. novak: KOSOVEL: A GREAT POET BUT A POOR PROSODISTOne of the strategies Kosovel employed in order to overcome semanticand euphonic bareness is – paradoxically – precisely the strategy of repetition,of which we have already spoken above. A repeated mistake is nolonger a mistake. A semantically and musically weak rhymed word that isrepeated is no longer weak, since the changed semantic context recharges theword with a new meaning. The repetition of rhymed words, which may haveinitially been an expression of the poet’s shortcomings and awkwardness, aninability to find a word that would rhyme, became a conscious and productivemodus operandi. Kosovel’s use of this procedure was so thoroughgoingthat his poetry no longer presents us with a rhyme in the traditional sense(that is, the repetition of all the sounds following the last accented vowel ina word), but with a procedure which Italian literary theory refers to as parolerime, end-words, where entire words are rhymed, where repeated wordsstand in for rhymes. I myself have termed this <strong>za</strong>-ključne beside (final/keywords): the final words in a line are rhythmically, musically and semanticallykey words. The Provencal troubadours of the 12 th and 13 th centuries werefond of this method, and used it in many different ways: they either repeatedend-words in each stan<strong>za</strong> in the same position (at the end of the first, second,third etc. verse line) or, following a complicated key, they repeated words invaried order. The most prominent example of the latter is a sestina, a poeticform that was invented by Arnaut Daniel and which repeats the end-words inthe order of 6 – 1 – 5 – 2 – 4 – 3. After six sestinas, six stan<strong>za</strong>s of six lines, thefinal tercet tornada usually goes back to the original order of the end-words,two in each line. With the exception of the sestina, which has survived thanksto Dante and Petrarch, this troubadour technique sadly disappeared from therepertoire of European poetry; how unexpected and lovely to see it reanimatedby an awkward young poet from the Slovenian Karst. The followingpoem can serve to demonstrate Kosovel’s use of end-words:Ne, jaz nočem še umreti,saj imam očeta, mater,saj imam še brate, sestre,ljubico, prijatelje;ne, jaz nočem še umreti.Ne, jaz nočem še umreti,saj še sije zlato sonce,saj mladost me drzna spremlja,saj so cilji še pred mano;ne, jaz nočem še umreti.No, I do not want yet to die,for I have a father, mother,I still have brothers, sisters,a sweetheart, friends;no, I do not want yet to die.No, I do not want yet to die,for the golden sun still shines,for bold youth is still with me,for there are goals still ahead;no, I do not want yet to die.Kadar pa ne bo nikogar,But when there is no one left,staršev ne, ne bratov, sester,neither parents, nor brothers, sisters,ljubice, prijateljev – my sweetheart, friends –in jesensko tiho sonceboand the quiet autumn sunčez Kras, čez Kras sijalo,shines across the Karst, the Karst,kot bi <strong>za</strong> mano žalovalo – as though it was in mourning for me –res, ne bom se bal umreti,then no, I will not be afraid to die,kaj mi samemu živeti?for why would I live alone?The final/key words in this poem are: to die, sisters, friends, and sun,but other words within the lines are also repeated, as is the final line of thefirst two stan<strong>za</strong>s, which gives the effect of a refrain. The stan<strong>za</strong> compositionof this poem is somewhat unusual: two five-line stan<strong>za</strong>s are followed137
KOSOVEL’s poeticsby an eight-line stan<strong>za</strong>, as though the poet had set out to write according toa plan of five-line symmetrical stan<strong>za</strong>s, but suddenly, in a flight of inspiration,prolonged the third, concluding stan<strong>za</strong>. With the exception of the lastfour lines, which have successive verbal rhymes (a facile and rather bombasticprocedure, but in this particular instance very effective), the text isunrhymed; the absence of rhymes Kosovel compensates for with compact,metrically organised verse (trochaic octosyllabic verse, with the exceptionof two seven-syllable lines with the same trochaic metre). If a series of unrhymedverse lines are suddenly followed by a rhyme, the unexpectednessof this acoustic transition makes it all the more powerful; the same effect isachieved by the absence of a rhyme after a series of rhymed lines; Kosovelmust have intuitively felt the poetic and emotional charge of such shifts inrhyme and metre.Rhyme, of course, is by no means merely a euphonic device; it is also arhythmic and semantic phenomenon. The interdependence of rhythm andrhyme (note the etymological kinship between the two words) is a markedfeature of many Kosovel’s texts which move away from traditional versification.In other words, in those poems where the rhythm is metricallyirreproachable, Kosovel allows himself to drop rhyme, and in those textswhere the poet has abandoned metrical regularity, a stronger use of rhymemakes up for the instability of rhythm. This is yet another proof of the lawmentioned earlier, that a structural vacuum left behind after the collapse ofthe traditional system of versification needs to be filled with other structuralmeans: if rhyme is barely audible, rhythm speaks forth; if rhythm dose notflow smoothly, lines are reinforced by rhyme. On the basis of the manyexamples Kosovel’s poetry provides, one can derive another, more general,maxim: the period of deterioration of the traditional system of versificationmetre and rhyme are inversely proportional to each other. The poemSpomnim se (I Remember) is a good example of when a reinforced metricaldesign (a trochaic octosyllabic line) fills the structural vacuum whichis left when rhymes and symmetrical stan<strong>za</strong>ic composition are abandoned.The organisation of the poetic text is made more compact also through anaphora(in/and; tiho, da ni /quietly, so) and syntactic parallels.Spomnim se, ko sem se vrnilin molčal sem kakor cesta,ki vse vidi, a ne sodi.Tam pod tistim temnim zidomsem poslavljal se od tebein sem te težkó poljubljalna oči otožnovdanein na tvoje temne lasein tajil besede rahle,da bi Krasu bil podoben.In ko sem domov se vračal,sem na cesti se razjokal,tiho, da ni čulo polje,tiho, da ni čula gmajna,da drevo ni <strong>za</strong>ihtelosredi gmajne, tiho, samo.I remember when I returnedand was mute like the roadthat sees all, but judges not.There beneath that dark wallI was taking leave of youand heavy were my kisseson your sad devoted eyesand on your dark hairand I kept tender words secretto resemble the Karst more.And on my way home,I burst out crying on the road,quietly, so the field could not hear,quietly, so the woods could not hear,so the tree did not weepamid the woods, quietly, alone.138
oris a. novak: KOSOVEL: A GREAT POET BUT A POOR PROSODISTAs an example of the reversed technique, let me cite the following poemMati čaka (Mother Is Waiting ), in which rhymes compensate for the absenceof regular metre:Tujec, vidiš to luč, ki v oknu gori?Moja mati me čaka in mene ni,vse je tiho v noči, polje temnó,zdaj bi stopil tja, pokleknil pred njo.Mati, poglej: nič nočem več od sveta,reci besedo, besedo, besedo od srca,da bo v njej mirna luč in topel svit<strong>za</strong>me, ki tavam okrog ubit, ubit.Stranger, can you see this light in the window burning?My mother is waiting and I am not there,everything is quiet in the night, the field dark,I would go there now, kneel down before her.Mother, look: there is nothing more I want from the world,say a word, a word, a word from the heart,so it will hold calm light and warm gleamfor me, who am wandering around beaten, beaten.Joj! Ugasnila je luč. Zakaj, ne vem.Šel bi pogledat, tujec, a zdaj ne smem.Daj mi, da morem umreti tukaj, sedaj,glej, meni je ugasnil edini, poslednji sijaj.Oh! The light has gone out. Why, I do not know.I would want to go and see, stranger, but cannot right now.Grant me that I should die here, now,You see, the one, final glow has died.The metrical impulse of this poem is trochaic, but one that undergoesnumerous variations; the rhythm changes, as do the number of syllables,which vary between 10 and 15. In order to counterbalance these rhythmicfluctuations, Kosovel resorts both to consecutive rhyme, which is the simplestof rhyme schemes and the “loudest”, and to a symmetrical, regularstan<strong>za</strong> organisation. My notion of the inverse relationship between metreand rhyme in a period of deterioration of the traditional system of versificationcan be extended to include stan<strong>za</strong> organisation. In metricallylooser poems, Kosovel and other poets of this transitional period insist onsymmetrical, regular stan<strong>za</strong>s, whereas whenever a poem adheres to strictmetrical composition, it allows for a more relaxed stan<strong>za</strong> composition andsymmetrical stan<strong>za</strong>s give way to stan<strong>za</strong>s of different lengths, organisedmainly according to the “thematic”, that is to say syntactic and semantic,aspect.From the generic and formal point of view, many of Kosovel’s earlypoems are modernised ballads. It is interesting to note that Kosovel usesthe title Balada (Ballad) for one of his short, simple and most celebratedpoems:V jesenski tihi časprileti brinjevkana Kras.Na poljuže nikogar več ni,le onapreko gmajneleti.In samo lovecji sledi…Into the autumn quiet timea fieldfare fliesto the KarstIn the fieldthere’s no one left,only the birdflyingover the woods.And only a hunterfollowing it…Strel v tišino;droben curek krvi;brinjevkaobleži, obleži.A shot through the quiet;a tiny trickle of blood;the fieldfarefalls dead, falls dead.139
KOSOVEL’s poeticsKosovel’s combination of narrative and lyrical elements and the poem’stragic conclusion are probably why he chose the title, A Ballad. On the otherhand, there are many poems to be found in Kosovel’s work where, besidethe dimensions of genre and theme, the poet also takes into account, consciouslyor unconsciously, the formal properties of the traditional Slovenianballad. The best example of a ballad “proper” is the well-known poem Bori(Pines), which is based on the trochaic octosyllabic verse metre, universallyone of the most common metres of the ballad. One other element ofKosovel’s poem that falls within the characteristic features of the ballad isthe use of dialogue. Instead of rhymes, the poem resorts to the principleof final/key words (gro<strong>za</strong>/terror, bori/pines, bratje/brothers, mati/mother,oče/father); the rhetorical figures of gemination, the immediate repetitionof a word (here, the word bori/pines); and the anaphora (bori/pines, ali/or,ko da/as though), all of which contribute toward a tighter structure.Bori, bori v tihi grozi,bori, bori v nemi grozi,bori, bori, bori, bori!Bori, bori, temni borikakor stražniki pod goropreko kamenite gmajnetežko, trudno šepetajo.Kadar bolna duša skloniv jasni noči se čez gore,čujem pritajene zvokein ne morem več <strong>za</strong>spati.»Trudno sanjajoči bori,ali umirajo mi bratje,ali umira moja mati,ali kliče me moj oče?«Brez odgovora vršijokakor v ubitih, trudnih sanjah,ko da umira moja mati,ko da kliče me moj oče,ko da so mi bolni bratje.Pines, pines in silent horrorpines, pines in mute horror,pines, pines, pines, pines !Pines, pines, dark pineslike guards at the foot of a mountainacross the stony woodswhisper heavily, exhausted.When a sick soul archeson a clear night across the mountains,I hear stifled soundsand can sleep no more.“Exhausted, dreaming pines,are my brothers dying,is my mother dying,is my father calling me?”Without answer, they swishas in beaten, spent dreams,as though my mother were dying,as though my father were calling me,as though my brothers were sick.Pines, one of Kosovel’s best poems, bears suggestive evidence that theyoung poet had overcome his initial prosodic awkwardness with the aid ofthe principle of repetition, and evolved it in the direction of a deeply personaland unusually mature poetic expression.The crown of Kosovel’s mastery of traditional versification is his sonnets– fifty poems brought together in part II of Pesmi (Poems) of SrečkoKosovel’s first volume of Zbrana dela (Collected Works), edited by AntonOcvirk (DZS, 1946). Some readers will not recognise these texts as sonnets,for the quatrains are followed by the third, six-line stan<strong>za</strong> (the tercetsare combined into a sextain). But even this stan<strong>za</strong>ic composition has a placewithin the rich and diverse storehouse of the subgenres of the sonnet form,and is not Kosovel’s invention. In these poems Kosovel is striving for thehistorically earliest metre of the sonnet verse line – the iambic hendecasyllable.And he achieves the so-called simplex, as Antonio da Tempo in the14 th century has referred to the demanding organisation of rhymes ABBAABBA CDC DCD (the envelope pattern of rhymes in the quatrains, and140
oris a. novak: KOSOVEL: A GREAT POET BUT A POOR PROSODISTinterlocking pattern of rhymes in the tercets – rime incatenate), which isthe sonnet form most frequently used by the great Slovenian Romantic poetFrance Prešeren, and constitutes the basic rhyming model in the history ofthe Slovenian sonnet form. An example of such rhyming is Kosovel’s sonnetTruden, ubit (Tired, Spent):Truden, ubit grem iz dneva v večer,na mojih ustnih ni več molitve,v moji duši prekrute žalitvein brez miru sem, miru ni nikjer.Kakor da sem že izgrešil smer,v dalji ne vidim več odrešitve,ah, v moji duši ni več molitvein miru več ne najdem nikjer.Dvigni se, duša pobita, steptana,dvigni, <strong>za</strong>gori, <strong>za</strong>poj do Boga,da boš kot harfa prijetno ubranakot med večernim žarenjem srca,da spet bom <strong>za</strong>slutil kraljestva neznanatam preko morij, tam onkraj sveta!Tired, spent I go from day to evening,on my lips there is no more prayer,in my soul, insults too crueland I am without peace, there’s no peace anywhere.As though I have already lost the way,in the distance I no longer see salvation,ah, in my soul there is no more prayerand peace is nowhere to be found.Rise, beaten soul, down-trodden,rise, flame up, sing forth all the way to God,so you will be like a harp sweetly fine-tunedas when the heart in the evening glows,so that once again I will intuit realms unknown,there beyond the oceans, there beyond the world!It needs also to be said that Kosovel did not combine this rigorous rhymescheme with iambic hendecasyllables, historically the foremost and alsosubsequently the most frequent sonnet metre, but instead based the metricalimpulse of his sonnet on dactyls, with some digressions and some oscillationin the number of syllables per line.Besides this variant, Kosovel also liked to employ cross rhymes in thequatrains (ABAB), and repeated rhymes (rime replicate: CDE CDE) or inverserhymes (rime invertite: CDE EDC) in the tercets. It is also interestingto note that Kosovel drew on a rhyme scheme characteristic of the Frenchand English sonnet, which is highly unusual for Slovenian poetry. Here isan example which adopts the French rhyme scheme (ABBA ABBA – orABAB ABAB – CCD EED) – Iz cikla: Peto nadstropje (From the Cycle:Fifth Floor).V petem nadstropju so dobri ljudje,v petem nadstropju in v vlažnih kleteh,tam se nikoli ne utrne smeh,oči tiho, mrliško brne.V petem nadstropju so dobri ljudje,v petem nadstropju in v vlažnih kleteh,tam se nikoli ne utrne smeh,oči tiho, mrliško brne.In otroci, ki se rode,kot da imajo žveplo v očeh,brezglasno leže, zvijajoč se po tleh,v cunje gnijoče ihte, ihte…Toda peto nadstropje in kletkadar pregnije, se zruši svetin stisne smeh veselih ljudi.Tropa vojakov s puškami gre,a še ti se nad mrliči zgroze –kako da bi mogli streljati?On the fifth floor there are good peopleon the fifth floor and in damp cellars,where laughter never erupts,the eyes silently, deathlike, whirr.On the fifth floor there are good peopleon the fifth floor and in damp cellars,where laughter never erupts,the eyes silently, deathlike, whirr.And children who are bornas though with sulphur in their eyes,lie soundlessly in convulsions on the floor,burying their eyes in rotting rags, weeping, weeping…But the fifth floor and the cellarwhen rotted through, the world collapsesand crushes the laughter of cheerful people.A troop of soldiers with rifles is coming,but even they shudder at the sight of the corpses –how could they possibly shoot?141
KOSOVEL’s poeticsIn Kosovel’s sonnets there are five which adopt the rhyme scheme characteristicof the so-called English sonnet (ABAB CDCD EFEF GG). Thefollowing rather bitter poem, Gospodom pesnikom (To Gentlemen Poets),is a good example:Kot v peklu <strong>za</strong>kajeni vinski kletiod jutra zbrani pa do polnočipisatelji, slikarji in poetidušijo svežost rože in moči.Obrazi njih mrtvaški so in bledi,njih srca jih peko kot ogenj vic,popivajo ob bedi in besediin javkanje, to njihov je poklic.Gostilna je njihova <strong>za</strong>vetníca.Pa naj velja še, kar je že nekdaj?Jaz pojdem tja, ker beda in krivicatemnita zlati kraljevski sijaj,ponižanje, trpljenje, glad in beda,tam naj spoznanja željni duh spregleda.In a wine cellar smoky as hell,from morning till midnightwriters, painters and poets are gathered,smothering the freshness of flowers and strength.Their faces are deathlike and pale,their hearts smart like the fire of purgatory,they drink over misery and talk,and whingeing – that is their calling.The tavern is their patroness.Does what has always been, still to hold true?I am going there, for misery and injusticeare dimming the golden regal glow,humiliation, suffering, hunger and misery,that’s where any spirit thirsty for knowledge shouldhave its eyes opened.Given their stan<strong>za</strong> organisation (4 – 4 – 6), it would appear that Kosovel’ssonnets do not match the structure of the English sonnet (4 – 4 – 4 – 2) ,but with questions of poetic form, the sound aspect (in this case, the rhymescheme) takes precendence over the graphic division or the visual make-upof the poem.In contrast to Prešeren’s exclusive use of feminine endings and rhymesin his sonnets, and all the poems written in iambic hendecasyllables,Kosovel often employs masculine endings and rhymes (or draws upon theso-called extended masculine rhyme, where the dactyl ending and rhymereplace the masculine rhyme), which has in fact been the general tendencyof the Slovenian sonnet form since Prešeren. The use of masculine rhymesis one dimension in which Kosovel and other poets deviate from Prešeren’smodel of the sonnet, which, however, has continued to have a firm hold onmany Slovenian sonneteers. It is significant that in the more socially criticaland political poems (eg. in the sonnets Revolucija/Revolution, Predkosilnisonnet/Pre-lunch Sonnet, as well as in the poem above, Iz cikla: Peto nadstropje/Fromthe Cycle: Fifth Floor), Kosovel uses almost exclusively masculineendings and rhymes, the tone of which is markedly sharper than thatof the feminine endings and rhymes.For Kosovel, writing sonnets was the apex of his metrical achievement;some sonnets are worthy of inclusion in an anthology of Slovenian sonnets.This would certainly apply to Sonet smrti (Sonnet of Death):In vse je nič. Te žametne očiki strmi v sivino,njih temni sloj prodira med tišinokot zvok, ki se v šumenju izgubi.Te tihe, črne, žametne očimi s svojim temnim bleskom in milinopoljubljajo to sivo bolečino,ki mojo dušo vsak dan bolj duši.And all is nothing. These velvet eyesso kakor žalost,are like sadness which stares into greyness,their dark layer penetrates silencelike a sound that is drowned by a rustle.These quiet, black, velvet eyes,with their dark shimmer and soft grace,kiss away this grey painthat suffocates my soul more with each passing day.142
oris a. novak: KOSOVEL: A GREAT POET BUT A POOR PROSODISTTe tihe, črne, žametne očiso kakor črno, žametno nebo,nad ostro rano Krasa razprostrto,so kakor luč, ki dušo pomiri;ko ugasne nad pokrajino razdrto,se v mehko temo duša potopi.These quiet, black, velvet eyes,are like the black, velvet sky,spread above the sharp wound of the Karst,are like the light which appeases the soul;when the lights go out above the shattered landscape,the soul sinks into soft dark.One of the most poignant poems is the sonnet Ena je gro<strong>za</strong> (One IsTerror).Ena je gro<strong>za</strong>, ta gro<strong>za</strong> je: biti –sredi kaosa, sredi noči,iskati izhoda in slutiti,da rešitve ni in ni.Včasih se med ranjene skaletiho razlije zlati svitjutranje <strong>za</strong>rje – šel bi dalje,pa že čutiš, da si ubit.Kakor da se <strong>za</strong>rja rani,kadar razgrne svoj pajčolan,kadar razlije goreče slapovjein ti <strong>za</strong>kliče pod goro: Vstani,glej, že gori razbito gorovje! –Ti čutiš ga in ne veruješ vanj. –One is terror, that terror is: being –amidst chaos, in the middle of the night,seeking a way out and sensingsalvation will not come, will not come.At times the golden dawningof daybreak quietly spillsbetween wounded rocks – you would go on,but you already feel your are beaten.As though the dawn hurts itselfwhen it spreads its veil,when it spills its burning cascades,and calls to you below the mountain: stand up,behold, the shattered mountains are already ablaze! –You feel him, but don’t believe in him. –After this early period of sonnet writing, Kosovel’s poetic adventuretook a different direction, towards avant-garde linguistic experimentation.The rhythm-forging function of syntax and the principle of repeating wordsmark the poet’s withdrawal from traditional versification and his entry intofree verse.To conclude: the body of Kosovel’s poetry written in regular metre offersmany examples which show that artistically strong poetry does not necessarilyrest on skilful versification. Srečko Kosovel is a poor prosodist andyet a great poet. Fortunately, in poetry versification is not all. Moreover,versification undergoes significant changes through time, and Kosovel’sexample demonstrates that shortcomings within one aesthetic system canbecome advantages in the next.Translated by Ana Jelnikar143
KOSOVEL’s poetics• AbstractUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / versification / metrics / rhymeFormally, the majority of Kosovel’s early poems, which Slovenian literaryhistory has unsatisfactorily labelled “impressionist lyrical poetry”, fall withinthe framework of traditional versification; more precisely, they belong to theperiod of its disintegration and demise. Awkward in prosody, young Kosovelsomewhat weakened traditional accentual-syllabic versification, thus bringingit closer to free verse.In these poems, Kosovel’s poetic language is very simple: verse rhythmis derivative of the most common and popular meters taken from a long tradition,the verse endings are marked by hackneyed, unoriginal rhymes, andthe poems are usually divided into the most prevalent stan<strong>za</strong> structure (mainlyquatrains).Particularly interesting is Kosovel’s use of rhyme: his rhyming dictionaryis, in fact, extremely poor, with a prevalence of so-called verbal rhymes. (Ofall the parts of speech in the Slovenian language, verbs are the easiest to rhymebecause of their corresponding inflections, and easily-formed rhymes tend tobe semantically – and thereby musically – poor.) It is as though Kosovel wereendlessly repeating the rhymes he had learnt from the poetic canon of 19 th -century Slovenian poetry. For any other, less talented, poet of Kosovel’s time,drawing on such a familiar and worn-out domestic stock of rhyme endingswould be a clear sign of a grossly sentimental and conservative poetics. Notso with Kosovel: in his verse, these rhymes, a hundred times used and abused,suddenly ring out in a different, fresh, and artistically authentic way. Kosovelsurpassed the weakness of his versification by repeating his mistakes: a repeatedmistake is no longer a mistake; it is already a system. A silent, but adeep and far-reaching break was effected within the traditional versification:even these inherited rhythms and rhymes were endowed with new sounds andmeaning through a different usage of poetic language (for in poetry, sound andmeaning are always closely bound together).In short, this segment of Kosovel’s poetry offers plenty of textbook exampleswhich show that great poetry does not necessarily rest on skilful versification.Srečko Kosovel is a poor prosodist, but a great poet. Fortunately, inpoetry, versification is not everything. Moreover, versification undergoes significantchanges through time, and Kosovel’s example demonstrates that theshortcomings within one aesthetic system can become advantages in the next.144
KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY:AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYDarja PavličFaculty of Education, Maribor, SloveniaFlowersImages of flowers are not the most common or the most important inKosovel’s poetry. Because the poet liked to project his feelings onto nature,flowers quite often become metaphors of his feelings and moods. The image“the autumn flower shut its calyx/ and leaned silent into the grey ground”(I 42) 1 for example, is not only a description of nature dying in autumn, butalso a metaphor of the lyric subject’s melancholy state. A frequent metaphorascribing human pain to flowers is “bleeding” (31, 132, 151).Kosovel rarely used names of individual flowers, and mainly when hewished to emphasize their special fragrance. Generally flowers feature inKosovel on account of their beauty, opulent fragrance, brief existence, etc.Less common is his metaphor: “My words are sharp flowers” (I 313). Theflowers are ascribed sharpness, but this is hardly unusual, considering theygrew among the stones of the Karst: the sharpness of stones is (metonymically)attributed to flowers. Kosovel also used flowers as images becauseof their healing properties (45, 404).Images of flowers also appear in Kosovel’s Integrals; literary historiansdescribe the collection as a syncretic conjunction of various literary movementsand currents, from expressionism and constructivism to dadaism,surrealism, and futurism. Most significantly, Integrals represents a changein Kosovel’s poetry in terms of composition: the images become fragmentary,thematically loose, the lyric subject often steps back and records impressionslike a film camera. Kosovel could possibly have got the idea forthis style of writing from German expressionism, or somewhere else. Thepoem “Flowers in the Window” is a typical example of approaching themodernist style of stringing images; however, the images themselves arestill fully traditional. This also becomes evident from a comparison withŽupančič’s poem “Early Spring”, which reads: “When have you, white-1In bibliographical quotations, the Roman numerals stand for volumes of CollectedWorks and the Arabic numerals for page numbers. When images from the samevolume are quoted in the same paragraph, the number of the volume is omitted.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue145
KOSOVEL’s poeticsthorn, gathered your flowers?/ As though skimmed from snowflakes/ theyare tied in white lace” (II 10). Kosovel portrays a similar image in a differentway: “The windows opened, the wind breathing in/ from the fields. Inthe window/ a whitethorn branch./ As though gently/ covered with snow./The sun on the window,/ the window is white./ The lace on the whitethornlike snow” (II 100).As a rule, Kosovel did not ascribe symbolic meaning to flowers.Surprisingly, most of the exceptions are found in Integrals. The flowersin “Cons: XY” may symbolize love, which has to lie low due to external,political engagement. In “Cons: MAS”, again, the flower is a symbol oflove. Even the tulips in the question “Do the tulips still blossom?” (II 114)can be ascribed a symbolic meaning of a hope for love crushed by the acknowledgment:“Ah, the chrysanthemums on graves” (ibid.). In the samepoem Kosovel used another traditional symbol: the face of a girl is lilywhite.White roses (178) symbolize the lost innocence of man, who becamea slave to machines. The associative logic of stringing images, which aredescriptive in themselves, can be observed in “Spherical Mirror”: the redchrysanthemum as a grave flower appears because of the verse “hang yourselfon a hook”, and the association it evokes is Ivan Cankar.TreesTrees are among the most common and most important images in Kosovel’spoetry. In over thirty cases the poet uses the generic word tree and hespeaks of pines in a further twenty at least. He also mentions the followingspecies: poplars (eight times), chestnuts (six times), elms (three times),limes (twice), cypresses (twice), black poplar (twice), walnut (once), acacias(once), aspen (once). Juniper, a bush, is not a very common image.Kosovel used it to describe the Karst landscape, but ascribed no other functionsto it.As editor of Kosovel’s Collected Works, Anton Ocvirk arranged hispoetry according to the motifs and forms. The first group of poems thuscontains “impressionist and emotional compositions” (I 428). Almost allof Kosovel’s poems about pines are in this group. As a commentary on thepoem “Pines”, Ocvirk wrote that to Kosovel “during the times of Italianrule, pines, like fieldfares, grew to represent the symbol of homeland”(441). Of course, it would be incorrect to claim that pines represent thehomeland in all of Kosovel’s poems. The image “The sea of pine rustlesdark” (I 16), comprised of a metaphor (the sea of pine) and synaesthesia(rustles dark) conveys the poet’s perception, it is merely an impression. Thesimile: “All these words should be/ fragrant as the sea of pine” (64) usesthe same metaphor – this time because of the strong, pleasant fragranceof the pine trees. In “Poem from the Karst” he wrote that their fragranceis healthy and strong. This poem personifies the pines and the poet callsthem “the silent comrades of the Karst solitude” (60). The pines are notmerely friends; they are sentinels (26, 61), together with the poet protect-146
Darja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYing and caressing the village (136), and the poet ascribes to them his ownfeelings: “The pines, the pines in silent horror […] howling […] as thoughmy mother were dying,/ as though my father were calling,/ as though mybrothers lay ill” (61). A symbolic interpretation of these verses is also possible:“the pines” could be seen as a symbol of the Karst people who livethrough the horror of foreign rule. Another symbol of the Karst people duringItalian occupation could be “dark pines” (63) and “pines – still stoics”(67). This is a typical symbol in terms of Goethe’s definition, a conjunctionof synecdoche and analogy: the fate of the pines is a part of the fate of theKarst, and at the same time there is a similarity between their fate and thefate of the Karst, or rather the Slovenians in Primorska in general.Kosovel liked to use imagery in which the trees howl (I 19, 50, 59, 62),rustle (40, 41, 146), and sway gently (49). These are descriptive images orimpressions speaking indirectly of the wind, of the bora. Another personificationis interesting: “A poplar and an aspen/ whisper silently across thefield/ with someone from beyond this world” (59). The trees in this imagecommunicate with transcendence, which is – however – distant, absent.Kosovel was not discovering correspondences between nature and higherspheres, but he did like to project his feelings onto nature and identify himselfwith it. He used images of trees because he was discovering varioussimilarities between himself and the trees, and also because he projectedonto them his feelings, particularly his unhappiness. Examples of explicitsimiles or metaphors, as well as hidden similes involving trees are numerousin Kosovel’s poetry.Poems, or rather, images speaking of yearning for an unknown, distantmystery may not be very typical of Kosovel. However, they are not so fewto overlook. The simile: “As though listening in to distances/ and reachingout to them with its hand/ in the snow, in the gold it stands alone,/ asilent, black tree” (I 58) ascribes to the tree symbolic attributes of yearningfor transcendence. Similarly, this simile: “As though above [the bottom]it listens in/ by the pond, a black tree” (56). In both cases a black tree is ametaphor of the lyric subject. There is an image of a white tree in Integrals(II 122) – the symbolic meaning in this case lies mostly in the colour. Themysterious white man conceived beside a white tree is probably Christ. Inthis next instance the lyric subject explicitly compares himself to a tree:“Like a tree from a shiny mosaic/ I grow into the invisible tree, into theCentre of the world” (I 324). In this image a symbol of a tree ascendingtowards transcendence is combined with a symbol of the centre, representingtranscendence itself.In several cases the descriptive images of trees in Integrals are incorporatedinto associative strings according to the principle of opposition (II 25,32); the most obvious example is the poem “In a Sad Tavern”. The image:“Out there/ poplars and the sun and lime-trees/ are glistening, rustling”(63) is the antithesis to what is going on in the tavern, in people. The imageof bare, black trees (91) shedding leaves is a metaphor for the dying ofEurope. Similes as such are not very common in Integrals – which couldbe understood as a sign of modernity; however, in the motif cluster of trees147
KOSOVEL’s poeticsthere is a technically interesting simile which overturns the initial correlationbetween the tenor and the vehicle: “Black poplars by the roads/ are likewidows wrapped in black -/ their bony arms/ are yellow/ like abandonedbranches” (135).AnimalsIn Kosovel’s pre-Integrals poetry, images of birds are common, whereasother animals are hardly ever mentioned. The poet calls the captain from“The Tragedy on the Ocean” a beast (I 407), compares the gear wheels tothe teeth of a beast (397) and the greedy world sniffing for money to a dog(168). Occasionally he uses the image of butterflies, and once a dragonflyand a panther. Similarly to Župančič, Kosovel attributes wings to manythings and phenomena, and therefore implicitly identifies them with birds(21, 141, 199, 383).The connection between a soul and a bird appears three times in Kosovel(I 35, 383, 384), as does the connection between a thought and a bird. Thereare frequent similes and metaphors in which the lyric subject is directlycompared to or identifies with birds. In certain images Kosovel also developsthe symbolic attributes of birds as traditional intermediaries betweenman and the absolute (362, 383). The following can be interpreted as apure symbol: “a bird in the light azure/ swaying and floating/ and passingby in its own calm silence/ without a greeting” (244). Staring after the birdin the azure, which is calm and self-sufficient inside, is the socially underprivilegedmasses. To them the bird represents an ideal. In the context ofKosovel’s poems with social subject matter, the bird passing by without agreeting is a symbol of a callous transcendence which does not respond topeoples’ anguish. When Kosovel describes his elated feelings upon decidingto fight for “man, mankind, people”, he uses the simile: “As thoughsome silent, white wings/ spread themselves across the world” (252). Thewings in this simile are a synecdoche for a bird, possibly an angel, so theycan also be interpreted as a symbol of the absolute. Kosovel often expressesthe future of new man through religious imagery – he describes it as thefuture heaven on earth, for example. He also used the image of a bird in theazure in his poem “To Fall” (397), which is about his desire to die.Kosovel mentions several kinds of birds: swans (four times), pigeons(three), fieldfare (three), crows (three), pelican (once), and eagle (once).He uses swans as a vehicle because of their whiteness: they are comparedto clouds (37) and pianist’s hands (321). There is an interesting image inwhich swans are a vehicle and a tenor at the same time: “A white coat shiningbrightly/ like swans – the clouds of spring” (346). Swans were one ofthe more recurring images in the poetry of symbolism and the connectionbetween a swan and a poet is a very old one; in Eleusinian Mysteries, forexample, a swan symbolised “the power of a poet and poetry”; elsewhere itwas “an emblem of an inspired poet, of a sacred priest, of a druid dressedin white, of a Nordic bard etc.” (Chevalier, 301). The swan in Kosovel’s148
Darja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERY“Swan Song” (137) is a symbol of the poet’s helplessness, which, however,does not concern creativity, as in the famous poem by Mallarmé, but ispurely existential: the swan or the poet needs to obey “the terrifying command[…], to stare within himself, to live against his will” (137). Kosovel’sself-understanding, his attitude towards his own existence was changing.The comparison, “I am here like an eagle among the azures/ close to God”(46) is optimistic: a self-assured image of a poet free of doubt. “I am nota bleeding pelican,” (226) is a very different metaphor, which is followedby an assurance that the poet will not grieve for his unfulfilled dreams. Thefeeling of disappointment in life is deepened by an image of a crow nailedto a cross and covertly compared to Christ (266). The motif of a capturedand tortured crow had already been used by Župančič in “The Crow”, publishedin 1902 in the almanac On New Paths. Jože Mahnič pointed out thatthe motif of “The Crow” in Župančič was a sketch for his condor in thepoem “The Graves Wail”, and that the creature “originated also under theinfluence of the author of Les fleurs du mal” (Mahnič, 30). The symbolicmeaning of the crow comes from German mythology, in which a crow isa harbinger of death. German expressionists intensified the image to anultimate repulsiveness, and as an expression of one’s inner state, it leavesno room for doubt as to the extent of mental distress” (Cosentino, 57).Kosovel’s caged crow bears more resemblance to the noble albatross orcondor than e.g. to Trakl’s crows “screeching tautly” at the smell of carcasses(“Die Raben”).The most typical bird in Kosovel is the fieldfare. In “A Poem”, whichopens the first volume of the Collected Works, the fieldfare has the roleof a vehicle: the poet speaks of the word which “rushes in a soft flight/like a fieldfare to the Karst” (I 9). The fieldfare is shot, and the poet asks,“Oh thought, why have you come to the Karst/ in this gloomy autumntime?” (9). The word or thought are not specifically identified, and weonly learn that in the multitude of other words it is something exceptional.If we assume that it is the poet’s word or his poetry, there still remainsthe question of the metaphorical hunters. The motif of a trapped bird isknown from Baudelaire; his albatross is a symbol for the poet who approachesthe absolute or the unutterable through his creativity, until he isstopped by mysterious hunters. The trapped condor in Župančič (Acrossthe Plains, 112) is confined by peoples’ ordinariness; as to the Kosovel’shunters, there is an accepted explanation which derives from the politicalsituation on the Karst after World War I. According to this explanationthe hunters of which Kosovel writes are not a metaphor, but actual Italianfieldfare hunters. These hunters were wiping out the birds, just as Italianfascists were endangering Slovenians in Primorska. So the fieldfares areusually interpreted as a symbol of classical type: their fate is analogous tothe fate of the Slovenians of Primorska; and they are also a synecdoche,because they represent a part of life endangered. This interpretation doesnot preclude us from seeing the fieldfares as the metaphorical poet or hispoetry, and the hunters as a metaphor for the people or forces killing thispoetry. The Italian fascists may not have been the only ones. Similarly,149
KOSOVEL’s poeticsin the “Pains” series (I 265–268), which contains the image of the crownailed to a cross, Kosovel does not directly tell us who the torturer is.The crow is a metaphor for the poet seeking the (nonexistent) truth, andthe only truth is pain or death. Kosovel compares the bleeding crow to aman “walking the promenade and lying”, looking in vain for “the word/ invain for nature” (267). His torturers could be members of the bourgeois,capitalist order; however, the lyric subject is under threat mainly from thegeneral situation of the times: he has entered the fake, over-materialisticworld and can no longer feel “the soft rolling of dreams” (265). When helearns the truth about the releasing power of death, he says: “And now Ishiver no more/ and the blood no longer trickles from my wings” (268). Inthe closing lines, the crow grows into a symbol similar to the bird in theazures: the crow, too, succumbs to death and thus to transcendence (268).The crow as a symbol for the poet originates from a romantic vision of thesublimity of the poet’s profession. Kosovel intensified the theme of endangerment,because his crow experiences true existential pains in the dehumanisedworld. The images used to describe torture, and particularly thecovert comparison to Christ, include hyperbolae, which could be viewedas a sign of expressionism.The share of animal imagery is extensive in Integrals; Kosovel added awhole menagerie to birds and butterflies: cats, horses, frogs, a rat, an orangutan,a tiger, a sand li<strong>za</strong>rd, a snake, a fish, a wall li<strong>za</strong>rd, bats. His imagesof birds are very traditional, and are no different from the images he usesin his pre-Integrals poetry. The following synecdoche likening of man to abird is typical: “You feel wings in your chest/ and wish to spread” (II 22).What is unusual here is the context in which the image appears.However, with certain animal images Kosovel breaks the traditional, logicalmodel of creating images. Such images defy interpretation, and couldbe called absolute metaphors. Among them are the following: “A one-eyedfish/ swims through the dark,/ black-eyed” (II 82); “orang-utan” (48). Interms of interpretation the following example is interesting: “The greenking of frogs/ rides on a chestnut” (48). This image is a model example ofsurrealist creativity because a syntactically correct construction is filled withelements that do not belong together semantically. A look at the context softensthe boldness of the image: the chestnuts are the greenery behind whicha window sleeps, and there “the moon and/ a miraculous landscape shine”.The verb “to ride” may be explained as a metaphor of a traditional type,whereas the green king of frogs belongs to the semantic field of a miraculouslandscape. The poem mentions certain countries, and we may assumethat it is a political leader who has turned into a frog. Such an explanationof the image, however, cannot lead us to its true meaning – one we couldexpress and describe; we can only talk about an effect. In “Gendarmes”Kosovel again uses an image of frogs, and once again in a political context:“the green parliament of frogs” (62). This time frogs are a metaphor forM.P.’s, who croak, or even gendarmes who – as Ocvirk points out – woregreen uniforms. This means that Kosovel indirectly identified M.P.’s withgendarmes, who were, he claimed, people of the lowest quality.150
Darja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYA significant portion of animal imagery in Integrals consists of similes(II 36, 62, 105, 109, and 168) and there are also a number of symbols. Therat in “Poem No. X”, which is dying in an attic, can be interpreted as a classictype symbol: its destiny is similar to that of people, but at the same time,as a synecdoche it calls our attention to the non-realisation of “humanitarianideals”, of which the prohibition on killing is the most important.With regard to blue horses – they appear in several places – Anton Ocvirkmentions a group of expressionist painters called Der Blaue Reiter. Amongthem was Franz Marc, known for a number of paintings of blue horses.Kosovel used them as a symbol, and Ocvirk saw them as “harbingers ofapproaching death” (II 656). In the image, which is technically a genitivemetaphor, this symbolic meaning is decoded: “Blue horses of eternal sleep”(177). Ocvirk ascribed the same symbolic meaning to Kosovel’s butterfliesfrom Integrals (140, 153, 173). Death symbolised by blue horses implies aunion with transcendence, and the images of butterflies, I think, symbolisethe imminence of transcendence.WaterThe water motif is found in images of the sea, lakes, a pond, rivers, waterfalls,springs and geysers. All together they are very numerous, particularlyif we add images of sailors, boats, rowers and so on. The imageof water as such was used by Kosovel in “The Ecstasy of Death”, wherehe claims that “there’s no water left in Europe […] no water […] to washaway/ his guilt […] that would help him quench/ his thirst for the silent,green morning nature” (I 304–305). In this image Kosovel decodes thesymbolic meaning of water as a source of life and as a means of purificationand rebirth.Kosovel used the image of the sea more than twenty times. In somecases the sea is a metaphor for a host of things: the sea of pine (I 16, 64)is a metaphor for a pine forest, the sea of green (325) is a metaphor formeadows, the sea of stars (286) stands for the stars. The sea is a vehicle forunrest and for the faces of revenge “which rise every moment like the sea/in this narrow riverbed of rotting fish” (259). This image is a relatively rareexample of the aesthetics of ugliness in Kosovel’s poetry. A narrow riverbedof rotting fish is a metaphor for the workers’ living conditions, and wascreated because of the metonymic closeness of fish and the sea.Ambivalence is typical of all symbols – the sea, for example, is the giver,as well as the destroyer of life. Kosovel develops positive, as well as negativesymbolic meanings of the sea, primarily through colour symbolism.Because of their whiteness, the white seas (I 72, 328) are a positive symbol;life on their shores is peaceful and orderly. The blue sea (291) is a symbolof the spiritual purification which accompanies transcendence, but also asymbol of the freedom of which prisoners dream (I 371; II 57). The samemeaning is carried by silver sea (I 373) or the sea metaphorically called asilver plane and a silver wing (371). The red sea is a metaphor for the light151
KOSOVEL’s poeticsof the setting sun, bringing destruction to Europe (304). Bleeding cloudshave also coloured “the red sea of grief” (339), which is a metaphor for theaching of the lovelorn poet. The colour of the sea in the poem about a sailthat is confined to the middle of the sea is symbolic in nature: the greynessof the sulphuric waters (400) symbolises an unsuccessful quest for thedawn. The black ocean of death (354) is a decoded symbol. Similarly, thedark ocean (406) is decoded as a destroyer of all life and at the same timestands as a symbol of rebirth, because it brings future life (410).The symbol of a flood is used several times; this fits the explanationthat the flood “is a sign of germination and rebirth, and it only destroysbecause the forms are worn out and drained, but is always followed by newhumanity and new history. […] The flood purifies and renews like baptism;it is an immense collective baptism, which is not governed by human consciousness,but rather by a higher and sovereign consciousness” (Chevalier,472). The motif of the flood is not purely Biblical; it appears in a numberof myths. The end of the world or Judgment Day has been expected inseveral periods in history, e.g. at the end of the first millennium, as well asat the end of the 19 th and even 20 th centuries. German expressionists boundthe idea of the end of the world to criticism of civilisation, and beforeWorld War I it was even believed that war would bring the same purificationas symbolised by the flood. In Kosovel’s times European society wasstill stirred by Spengler’s book The Decline of the West. Kosovel wroteabout his understanding of the idea of European decline in his lecture ’Artand the Proletarian’: “If we speak of the decline of Europe, what we havein mind is the decline of decaying capitalism which tries by hook or bycrook to reign across Europe, but which like every injustice, must declinein the years to come. It is in this sense one should understand my poemThe Ecstasy of Death” (I 485). The symbols in “The Ecstasy of Death”correspond to Kosovel’s own interpretation: first the sun makes everythingsink into a scorching red sea, then it shines on the dead with its golden rays(304–305). The symbolic meaning of the flood in this case is ascribed to thesun, but usually the purification takes place in the sea itself. Although theflood is necessary to restore humanity, the events themselves are horrifying.As horrifying as the image of man, “drowning, [yet] unable to drown/in the heavy, lead-grey waves” (253). The drowning means death, but italso means rebirth. The motif of the flood is most fully developed in his“Tragedy on the Ocean”: the ocean symbolises destruction and purification.In this series, too, Kosovel used the image of drowned people, who“cannot/ sink to the bottom, to the bottom,/ yet cannot set themselves free”(407). This image relates to the prophecy in the Book of Revelation: “Andin those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desireto die, and death shall flee from them.” (9, 6). The only solution – paradoxically– is a terrifying death. This makes ambivalent the symbol of thecaptain saviour/beast who will “split with his oar the heads/ of those notfully sunk” (407). The symbol of the beast is known from the Book ofRevelation, where it stands for the Antichrist. The four rowers evoke theFour Horsemen of the Apocalypse; however, Kosovel gives them a slightly152
Darja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYdifferent role: instead of announcing the disaster, they ask the king to cometo their aid.In Slovenian poetry images of sailors and boats are typical of AntonVodnik, who speaks of red (sinful) and white (innocent, devoted to God)sailors; his is the identification “I was a boat on the golden water ofdreams”. Kosovel, too, wrote of sailors and boats. He came very close toVodnik’s yearning for transcendence with his image: “I steered a goldenboat/ on the red waters of the evening/ among the trees/ and grassy banks./I steered the boat/ I, the golden sailor” (I 319). It is well known that beforehis death Kosovel was preparing a collection to be called The Golden Boat.He even wrote a preface, in which he claims he has said goodbye to theyoung man who wrote “velvety lyric poetry” (426). This is the theme ofthe poem that begins with the above-quoted image. Very different from thegolden sailor is the sailor from “Nocturno”, who has hidden his face behinda yellow sail (213). The sailor is once again a metaphor for the poet, onlythis time he dreams of a revolt. He hides his face because he wants to belike Beethoven, and the sail is yellow due to the burning sun. The image ofthe golden boat is used three times in Integrals, and according to Ocvirkit refers to his unpublished collection of poems. This interpretation seemslikely in the case of the question: “Why did you drop a golden boat into themarshes?” (II 31), whereas in the other two cases (38, 46) the golden boatis more probably a metaphor of the poet’s spiritual adventures and searching,supported by other images. In the poem “My Great Hope” Kosovelwrote: “The moon/ over the city, leaving./ I stand on a white shore,/ alone.[…] I might swim away tomorrow,/ in a week, in a year” (118). The ideaof leaving, as Lado Kralj speculates in his analysis of Kosovel’s programmatictext “We Sail in the Spring!”, is comparable to the untranslatableexpressionist slogan »der Aufbruch«, but was probably developed simultaneously(Kralj, 182–183). The poem only hints at a departure for space, ortranscendence. The following image is much more straightforward: “Everyday/ we sail into vast Space/ in white boats of Dreams” (169). This imageis also comparable to Vodnik’s: both poets embark on their respective pathsto transcendence in metaphorical boats and dreams.Vodnik’s sailors are an allegory of God-searching. Kosovel also usedthe metaphor of a quest. “Silent sailors, the undying” (I 400) are trappedon a boat at sea and cannot see the morning dawn. Builders who resemble“sailors on their voyage,/ travelling through a grey greyness” (294) cometo realise that all action is in vain. The images of being trapped and helplessin the middle of the sea are metaphors of the poet’s experience ofthe world and his time. Another metaphor of impotence is the image of ayoung corpse lying among flowers on a ship (401), and an image of a sailoramong poisonous flowers (404), because he passively accepts the flood.Anton Ocvirk assumed that Kosovel adopted the motif of a sailor who diesamong the flowers in his boat from a folk poem. It is only in Integrals thatKosovel writes an image which expresses optimism: it is the metaphor of asailor “shot into eternity” (II 124).153
KOSOVEL’s poeticsThe SunThere are more than eighty images involving the sun; and well over a hundredand twenty if we add the poems from Integrals. Besides the imagesreferring to the sun or dawn, we may include images of glittering and glowing– if they come from the sun. That is, other sources of light are alsoreferred to: fire, a light in a window and, a couple of times, electricity.Kosovel liked to describe the glittering of the sun and sunsets on theKarst, for which he often employed a metaphor of fire or burning (I 19,20, 22, 213). He also used other metaphors for sunlight (58, 83, 323) ormetonymically ascribed the gleaming of the sun to the clouds (30, 31, 49,80, 354). Because the poet also ascribed symbolic qualities to the sun, itis often difficult to judge whether an image of the sun is a mere descriptionor a symbol. The sun can almost always be interpreted as a symbol.At times Kosovel hinted at or decoded its symbolic meaning, for example,as the source of life and optimism (21). His golden evening clouds havethe same symbolic meaning (30). When the poet cries: “The sun, oh, thisgolden sun!” (323) or: “The sun. The sun. The sun” (325), he again ascribesa symbolic meaning to it.In some poems, or rather images of the sun, Kosovel comes very closeto the vitalism of Župančič; however, in other images the symbolic meaningof the sun is different. Kosovel himself was aware of this change andhe wrote that “the sun has fallen/ from its heights/ and as if everythingelse,/ less golden, shone at once/ more clear, more alive,/ as if born anew/I stepped onto the shore” (I 319). Less golden, for example, is the sun that“shines/ as if it shone dead up in the sky” (253). In his image: “The bloodysun is already burning” (233), Kosovel turned the sun into a symbol ofthe approaching uprising of the masses. Less socially oriented is the poem“The Evening Sun”, where he says: “the sun will scorch this grass/ and thenthe sun, the sun itself will go out” (131). The symbolic meaning that thesun acquires in this image is no longer life’s optimism, but rather the opposite:instead of giving life, the sun destroys it. Similarly, in “The Ecstasyof Death” the setting sun is a symbolic destroyer, while at the same timeenabling new life to develop. Only when everyone is dead, will the sunshine again “with its golden rays” (305). In the image: “The evening sun isburning,/ burning, yet it cannot burn me out” (344), the sun is once againambivalent: as it destroys the old life, it prepares a path for the new. Thisnew life is symbolised by “Svetovit, the sun god” (346) and he is the onethat the poet wishes to follow.Images of the sun are also very frequent in Integrals. The sun is oftenascribed positive symbolic qualities, but there are a few images whichde-aesthetisise the sun, such as the following simile: “The fat sun strolls/like a fat butcher’s wife/ around the village./ This sun is sad” (II 21). In“Contemporary Lethargy” the poet contemplates the necessity of fightingfor “a new religion of the sun”, because the sun is “the only beautifulthing/ [left] in the world” (148), but in reality he speaks for a religion ofman, because at the end of the poem he writes the metaphor “sun-man”.154
Darja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYMore daring is the metaphor “the silver sun,/ admiral” (60) Kosovel usedin “Detective No. 16” after simultaneously developing a motif of the sunon a winter morning and a house search at the poet’s home. According toAnton Ocvirk, Kosovel knew of a dadaist poem called “Admiral”. BecauseKosovel also wrote that the poem hurries “on the silver wings/ of the wintersolar/ wind”, “the silver sun,/ admiral” could be a double metaphor fora poem. In “An Insult to the White Bed of King Hypponeandrus Hoppu”the insulters are called “desecrators of the sun” (49), and this indirectlyidentifies the bed of the king Hypponeandrus (early man) with the sun.Another bold metaphor is “the sun’s policemen” (12), but it is clear fromthe context that it aims at people who have no spirit and therefore are notfond of light.The HeartImages of the heart are about as frequent in Kosovel’s poetry as the imagesof the Sun, therefore among the most common ones. Consistent withtradition, the heart is the symbolic centre of emotional life. To Kosovel,the heart is subject to mood changes: it is repeatedly ill, sad, downtrodden,death comes over it, etc. Images with the heart as a symbolic spiritual centreare relatively rare (I 206, 207). The metaphor “my heart is a smashed sanctuary”(309) speaks of his lost faith in his own dreams. However, the hearthas found a new faith: it believes in a future man (240). The melancholy ofthe heart has been replaced by “a wave of bright courage, strength”, comingfrom the heart (237).Images of the heart are also very common in Integrals; in this collectionthe poet no longer speaks as much of his own heart and its sufferings, butmore of the hearts of others. His heart is “open to eternity: from Chaos toCosmos” (II 181), yet at the same time socially sensitive (43), and so largethat a “huge elephant slops” through it (34). On the other hand, humanhearts are small (34), they contain gold dollars (20), “their hearts are stone[…] are dry” (168). Kosovel often uses heart metaphors to express his criticismof modern society: the heart in alcohol (29), the heart-Trieste is ill(55), civili<strong>za</strong>tion lacks heart (73), no altar to man in the heart (92). His callsfor transformation and uprising are aimed at the heart: “I would like to gothrough human hearts” (34), “I awaken hearts” (48), “bark, hearts” (72).The SoulImages of the soul are about as frequent as images of the heart, and their ascribedqualities are comparable. Just like the heart, the soul is the centre ofemotions and feelings. The soul, too, is often ill, depressed or fearful and,like the heart, yearns for God’s comfort. In his love poems Kosovel usedthe soul images more often than heart images. In sacred solitude the soulshould discover God (I 207), but in the motifs of the soul we can also ob-155
KOSOVEL’s poeticsserve Kosovel’s switching to social themes (213, 242, 279). Several imagesimply that souls should undergo a metamorphosis; a metaphor of burning istypical: “The sick man should fall,/ sick souls, burn out!” (260)In Integrals, images of the soul are less frequent than images of theheart, yet both are closely connected and often even appear in sequence.People have no hearts and no souls; Kosovel speaks of “evacuation ofsouls” (II 73). The boldest image of the soul is a metaphor coupled witha simile: “a fast torpedo boat/ like a bullet,/ propelled into the night -/ mysoul flees” (124). In terms of motifs, this image represents Kosovel’s departurefrom traditional verse, yet it is typical of his imagery of the heart andthe soul that it expresses feelings directly.Religious ImageryReligious imagery in Kosovel’s poetry is even more frequent than imagesof the sun, the soul or the heart: there are over one hundred and twenty.The most important among the religious images are those connected withGod. Kosovel frequently expresses a yearning for God; not only God’s voicewould bring consolation, but also his embrace (I 21), kiss (207) and his presencein general, which the poet sometimes feels (46, 68, 201, 272, 293).Besides images which clearly express faith in God there are images ofan absent, hidden God who cannot be known: God is a mysterious mystery;the poet asks him whether he is the wideness, the deepness, the courselessnessand the course to everything, the invisible Centre of all centres,whether he is the Father or the Brother, who lives only in the remotenessof the soul (I 196). These are not the only metaphors Kosovel uses to describeGod; he also calls him the Unknown (382, 383) and the pole of mysoul (383). Despite desperate pleas to help the individual and mankind,God remains silent (383), the four rowers call on him in vain (411). In thecontext of Kosovel’s poetry the conclusion that He is not there (383) doesnot necessarily mean that God does not exist; it only means that God doesnot interfere upon request from people, that He does not appear to humaneyes, that he remains hidden or absent.In Integrals God is only mentioned a couple of times; according toOcvirk, the supposition that God is “on hand” (II 32) was replaced by animage of a God who is on leave. This image would correspond to the ideaof an absent God. The image of a God who is “on hand” speaks mainly ofpeople’s attitude towards God.Kosovel often used religious imagery in poems with social or politicalsubject matter. Metaphors for the future include, for example, paradise (I286) and a new temple (180); the expectations of the masses are sacred, thepoet metaphorically equates them with a sanctuary and they refer to a kingwho will arise (181). The king in this case is a metaphor for the avengerof the politically oppressed people of the Karst. Kosovel’s conceptions ofthe leader of the social and political revolution are (like the conceptions ofcertain expressionists) religiously coloured. In the white future there is also156
Darja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYa place for God (250). Religious motifs are distinctively transformed incertain images (230, 249, 287). There are a number of images in Integralswhich speak of a new religion (148), of faith in humanity (179). Manshould sacrifice his body for a new church, and his hands and heart for thealtars of the future (153).MusicWith the images drawn from music Kosovel expressed among other thingswhat one could call the state of the soul – to use a concept from Frenchsymbolism. It is about a mood that cannot be precisely defined or described,for it oscillates between sadness, melancholy, unrest, yearning etc. In thepoem “I love you” (I 338) a beloved girl is playing the piano, while thelyric subject “listens as if made of stone”, because he perceives her playingas an expression of the soul, or rather, its grief. The poem is probably atleast in part autobiographical, because we know that Kosovel’s sister wasa brilliant pianist.In some cases, to express his mood, Kosovel used synaesthesia, whichis not his typical poetic device. Beside tired synaethesias like a sweet song(I 68) and bright chords (128), he used some bolder ones: the soft sound ofthe Angelus (23), glimmering and bright ringing (47), sharp silence (195).The sounds of bells, organ, and particularly piano, in certain cases growinto symbols which among other things express the transitoriness of allthings. Instead of a trembling violin typical of French symbolists, Kosovelhas an image of a weeping piano: “A chord sobs out on a dead piano/ andthen once more sinks into eternity” (166). Typical of this image is the factthat the instrument and the sound are personified. Similarly, the poem “ASketch at a Concert” personifies the piano, but then turns its attention to thepianist, who “spread his white hands […] Silently, as if on a black/ marblelake/ two white swans had floated away/ seeking infinity” (321). This ishow Kosovel usually proceeded: although he personified the piano and ascribedto it a symbolic meaning, the true subject and the source of the moodis the pianist, and thus the symbolic meaning of the piano is decoded.In a poem entitled “Meditation at the Piano” we find the following metaphor:“My words are a gentle playing of the piano/ from the golden windowinto the night” (I 313). He expressed a very different vision of his own poetrywith the metaphor “My poem is an explosion./ Disharmony. Wild corrosion.”(229) There is the same connection with the semantic field of (musical)disharmony in this next identification from the poem “Nocturne”: “I ama pianist with iron hands” (213). Iron hands co-establish a semantic fieldof disruption and explosion; with them the poet is “pounding on his whiteKarst” (213). The metaphor of gently playing the piano has therefore beenreplaced by the metaphor of a pianist pounding. Kosovel ingeniously usedthe double metaphorical meaning of the verb to pound: besides the worn-outmetaphor of pounding on the piano there is the metaphorical pounding on theKarst. The metaphorical chain goes therefore like this: to write unsentimentalpoems – to pound on the piano – to pound on the Karst.157
KOSOVEL’s poeticsImages of the piano are less common in Integrals than in the first volumeof Kosovel’s Collected Works, but they are still diverse. Images expressingjoy (II 112), sadness (114) and unrest (103) are in every respect traditional.More unusual is the material Kosovel used in the poem “Cons: Cat”. A catjumping on the piano and wondering that it sings is probably a metaphorfor people who think they can write poetry. Kosovel never entered intoself-serving radical linguistic experiments, and his poetry always retaineda level of meaning – which cannot be a coincidental product. In a poem entitled“My Black Ink Bottle” Kosovel mocked poets of a different school:“A melancholy cat lying on the hay./ Squeaking on its golden violin.” (24)We have mentioned that the violin was an instrument of symbolists, andBaudelaire, for example, had a special affection for cats.TechnologyImages of nature are predominant in Kosovel’s poetry; a stronger concentrationof urban imagery, particularly means of transport, is only later presentin Integrals. Kosovel mentions most frequently a train (eight times) and cars(five times); he twice mentions aircraft and a tram, and once a torpedo boat.The images are often descriptive, and incorporated in associative strings,in a montage of disparate images, but they only rarely achieve impersonality.A typical example of this is “Cons: ABC”: “Stay cold, heart!/ Cynic./Transformer./ The Orient express for Paris on a viaduct./ Wrists in chains./Cars run./ I can not./ My thought – electricity/ is in Paris.” (II 13). The imagesof the train and cars are descriptive, and only achieve metaphoricalvalue in connection to the other images: they indicate a movement that thelyric subject only wishes for, but cannot achieve. At the centre of Kosovel’spoem, contrary to the futurists’ glorification of movement and technology,is the impotence of the lyric subject. The image “Aeroplanes widen the horizon,/raising cosmic consciousness” (160) from the poem “The Autumn”at least seemingly comes close to the idea of progress brought about by themodern technological age – but how then are we to understand the closingverses: “2000 meters in the air/ perspective is no more” (160)? From thepoint of view of futurism a comparison of a train and a snail is unacceptable(29), and the conclusion that “spirit is faster than the Orient Express” (15)is not really orthodox either. Kosovel’s poetics stems from the idea of a newman who “is not an automaton”. According to Franc Zadravec, this humanistidea is compatible neither with the futurists’ glorification of technology,nor with the views of Russian constructivists (Zadravec 1988, 214).By broadening his catalogue of imagery to the field of technology,Kosovel obtained an important source for bold metaphors and comparisons:he compared the lyric subject to “an electric spark/ jumping” (II 46),identified himself with a red rocket (125), called his soul “a fast torpedoboat/ like a bullet,/ propelled into the night” (124). All these images expressthe physical and psychic unrest of a man trying to achieve personal andsocial transformation.158
ConclusionDarja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYIf we use the analysis of imagery in Kosovel’s poetry as an indication ofwhether his poetry is traditional or modern, we can establish the following:1. The structural analysis of Kosovel’s imagery has shown that Kosovelused so-called modern figures of speech only in a limited number of poems.One can find some rather bold metaphors in Integrals, some cases of absolutemetaphor (one-eyed fish, green king of frogs, desecrators of the sun)and individual cases of analogies or images of identification (my thought– electricity; sun, admiral), but this is not enough to link Kosovel to futurismor surrealism. Symbolist symbols expressing horizontal correspondenceswere not used by Kosovel, the only exceptions being the piano and the lake.Kosovel used many so-called natural symbols; however, their meanings tendto be conventional, and for the most part decoded. He also used Biblical symbols,but he did not transform mythological symbols or fuse the abstract andthe concrete (with the exception of the piano), which is, according to AnnaBalakian, a key trait in symbolism. Kosovel tended to subsume symbols intometaphors or similes; so-called pure symbols are rare. He used many descriptiveimages. The bulk of Kosovel’s poetry is closer to realism (particularlyin pure impressions) and romanticism (particularly in poems expressingsimilarities between nature and man) than symbolism.2. In his grammatical analysis of modern metaphors, Hugo Friedrichobserved a shift towards a full identification of two objects or parts. Thegroup of modern-type identification metaphors in Kosovel includes the raremetaphors made with apposition. His genitival metaphors are still whollytraditional. The technique of merging has not been established.3. On the level of composition, symbolist poetry is characterised by networksof symbols, which Kosovel never used. Integrals are montages ofdisparate images. The idea for this style of writing could have come fromany number of sources, since it is typical of all modernist movements. Heoccasionally used a nominal style; however, according to Lado Kralj, aprime example of a nominal style in Slovenian expressionism is a poem byBožo Vodušek “A Town at Night” (Kralj, 179). The main cohesive elementin Kosovel’s poetry, besides that of the thematic interconnections betweenimages, is the lyric subject. Only a few poems from the Integrals collectionare impersonal.4. Kosovel drew most extensively on the following motifs: flowers,animals, water, the sun, the moon, night, the stars, heart, soul, religiousimages, music, technology. Since these motifs appear in different literarytrends and movements, it is impossible to identify Kosovel with a particularmovement solely on the basis of the catalogue of imagery he used. In termsof the thematic function of his images, Kosovel’s closest affinity seems tobe with romantic and expressionist poetryTranslated by Katarina Jerin159
KOSOVEL’s poeticsbibliographyBALAKIAN, Anna: The Symbolist Movement. A critical appraisal. New York:University Press, 1977.BALAKIAN, Anna (Ed.): The Symbolist Movement. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado,1984.BALAKIAN, Anna: “The Symbol and after.” Neohelicon 1 (1991).BALAKIAN, Anna: The Fiction of the Poet. From Mallarmé to the Post-symbolistMode. Princeton: University Press, 1992.BERNIK, France: »Impresionizem v slovenski liriki.« XVI. seminar slovenskegajezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana, 1980.BLACK, Max: Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, New York: Cornel University Press,1962.BOWRA, C. M: The Heritage of Symbolism. New York: Schocken Books, 1961.CHEVALIER, Jean in Gheerbrant, Alain. Slovar simbolov. [Dictionnaire desSymboles] Ljubljana: MK, 1993.COSENTINO, Christine: Tierbilder in der Lyrik des Expressionismus. Bonn:Bouvier Verlag, 1972.FRIEDRICH, Hugo: Struktura moderne lirike. [Die Struktur der moderne Lyrik]Ljubljana: CZ, 1972.HILLMANN, Heinz: Bildlichkeit der deutschen Romantik. Frankfurt: AthenäumVerlag, 1971.KILLY, Walther: Wandlungen des lyrischen Bildes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1956.KOS, Janko: Romantika. Ljubljana: DZS, 1980.KOS, Janko: »K vprašanju literarnih smeri in obdobij.« Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 1(1982).KOSOVEL, Srečko: Pesmi. Zbrano delo I. Ed. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS,1964.KOSOVEL, Srečko: Integrali. Zbrano delo II. Ed. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS,1974.KRALJ, Lado: Ekspresionizem. Ljubljana: DZS, 1986.KURZ, Gerhard: Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1982.MAHNIČ, Joža: Župančič in Baudelaire. (Dissertation). Ljubljana, 1944.MARINETTI, F. T.: Teoria e invenzione futurista. Milano: Arnoldo MondadoriEditore, 1983.MARSCH, Edgar: »Die lyrische Chiffre.« Sprachkunst 1 (1970).MICHAUD, Guy: Message poétique du symbolisme. Paris: Librairie Nizet, 1951.NEUMANN, Gerhard: »Die absolute Metapher.« Poetica 3 (1970).OBDOBJE simbolizma v slovenskem jeziku, <strong>književnost</strong>i in kulturi. IV/1. Ljubljana:Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1983.OBDOBJE ekspresionizma v slovenskem jeziku, <strong>književnost</strong>i in kulturi. V. Ljubljana:Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1984.PATERNU, Boris: »Kosovelova fa<strong>za</strong> slovenskega pesniškega modernizma.« Slavističnarevija 2 (1985).PATERNU, Boris: Obdobja in slogi v slovenski <strong>književnost</strong>i. Ljubljana: MK,1989.PASTOR, Eckart: Studien zum dichterischen Bild im frühen französischen Surrealismus.Paris: Société d´Edition les Belles Lettres, 1972.RICHARDS, I. A.: The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London, Oxford, New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1976. (1936).160
Darja pavlič: KOSOVEL AND MODERN POETRY: AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGERYROMANI, Bruno: Dal simbolismo al futurismo. Firenze: Edizioni Remo Sandron,1970.ROTHE, Wolfgang (Ed.): Expressionismus als Literatur. Bern und München:Francke Verlag, 1969.SCHNEIDER, Karl Ludwig: Der bildhafte Ausdruck in den Dichtungen GeorgHeyms, Georg Trakls und Ernst Stadlers. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1968(3. izdaja).SØRENSEN, Bengt Algot: Allegorie und Symbol. Texte zur Theorie des dichterischenBildes im 18. und frühe 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag,1972.TROHA, Vera: Futurizem. Ljubljana: DZS, 1993.Vodnik, Anton: Žalostne roke. Vigilije. Zbrano delo I. Ed. France Pibernik. Ljubljana:DZS, 1993.VORDTRIEDE, Werner: Novalis und die französischen Symbolisten. Stuttgart: W.Kohlhammer Verlag, 1963.VREČKO, Janez: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem.Maribor: Obzorja, 1986.WEINRICH, Harald: »Semantik der kühnen Metapher.« Dvjs 3 (1963).WEISGERBER, Jean (Ed.): Les avant-gardes littéraires au XX e siècle. I Histoire,II Theorie. Budapest, 1984.WEISSTEIN, Ulrich (Ed.): Expressionism as an International Literary Phenomenon.Paris-Budapest, 1984.WELLEK, René: “The Term and Concept of Symbolism in Literary History.”Discriminations. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1971.ZADRAVEC, Franc: »Kosovelova impresionistična lirika.« Razprave 11 (1987).ZADRAVEC, Franc: »Srečko Kosovel in ruski pesniški konstruktivizem – podobnostiin razločki.« Slavistična revija 2 (1988).ZADRAVEC, Franc: Slovenska ekspresionistična literatura. Murska Sobota: Pomurska<strong>za</strong>ložba; Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut FF, 1993.ŽUPANČIČ, Oton: Čaša opojnosti. Čez plan. Zbrano delo I. Eds. Josip Vidmar andDušan pirjevec. Ljubljana: DZS, 1956.ŽUPANČIČ, Oton: Samogovori. Mlada pota. Zbrano delo II. Eds. Josip Vidmarand Dušan Pirjevec. Ljubljana: DZS, 1957.• ABSTRACTUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / literary imagery / metaphor /symbolBesides analysing the images that Kosovel used most frequently, the paper alsodiscovers their structural, grammatical and compositional characteristics. Themain conclusions can be summarised in four points:1. Kosovel used so-called modern figures of speech only in a limited numberof poems. There are some rather bold metaphors in s, some cases of absolutemetaphor and individual cases of analogies or images of identification, but thisis not enough to link Kosovel to futurism or surrealism. Kosovel did not usesymbolist symbols expressing horizontal correspondences, the only exceptions161
KOSOVEL’s poeticsbeing the piano and the lake. He used many so-called natural symbols; however,their meanings tend to be conventional, and for the most part decoded.The bulk of Kosovel’s poetry tends to realism (particularly in pure impressions)and romanticism (particularly in poems expressing similarities betweennature and people).2. The group of modern identification metaphors in Kosovel includes raremetaphors made with apposition. His genitival metaphors are still wholly traditional.A technique of merging was not established.3. Symbolist poetry is characterised by networks of symbols, which Kosovelnever employed. Integrals consists of montages of disparate images. The ideafor this style of writing could have come from any number of sources, since itis typical of all modernist movements. He occasionally uses a nominal style;only a few poems from the Integrals collection are impersonal.4. Kosovel drew most extensively on the following motifs: flowers, animals,water, the sun, the moon, night, the stars, heart, soul, religious images, music,and technology. Since these motifs appear in different literary trends and movements,it is impossible to identify Kosovel with a particular movement solelyon the basis of his imagery. In terms of the thematic function of his images,Kosovel’s closest affinity seems to be with romanticism and expressionism.162
The Idea behind the Integralsin Kosovel’s PoetryBożena TokarzUniversity of Silesia, Katowice, PolandAt at a certain point, Kosovel began to distance himself from the rather tooreckless acceptance of new art practices and became somewhat concernedthat the idea of totality behind the inter-related spheres of poetry, man andreality, might be clouded over or even lost. In line with many other avantgardeartists he believed in the organic unity of the world and man, the Earthand the Universe. His outlook had a keen anthropocentric thrust, which ledhim to believe that the new reality needed a new kind of human being – Manwho was humane, that is to say rational (Srecko would say logical), sensitive,and above all ethical. The complexity of a zenitist poem with its compositionprocess of montage reminded him of layer cakes 1 or an apple strudel. 2 Eventhough he saw in it a source of numerous possibilities, he was himself searchingfor a different kind of poetic expression, one that would enable him tocome as close as possible to the totality of human existence. When he wrote:“I am not an aesthetic figure”, he clearly moved away from elitist art and itsbent toward aesthetics. These preoccupations of Kosovel found expression inquestions of both aesthetic and ethic nature related to his konsi (cons poems)and integrali (integrals). He became intensely involved in the appreciationof emerging new art, the Slovenian poetic tradition (particularly Zupančič),the fast-changing technology that was creating new behavioural patterns andmodes of feeling, the receptivity pertaining to his youth only intensifyingthis involvement, so that Kosovel had no time for sorting out and elaboratinghis own poetic vision that had been forming in the months leading up tohis death. His poetics was therefore still within the sphere of crystallisation.Kosovel did not just want to deal with words, which is not to say he saw noneed to mould his artistic creativity according to the new perceptions formedunder the influence of the iconosphere. This can easily be established fromhis poetry, short prose and journals. What Kosovel, having suffered the fatehe did, left us with are writings of tremendous intuition, great potential, andwork that is by no means finished or completed. It is precisely because of thispotentiality, his poetics of contradiction and his poetic vision that this avantgardepoet became most popular in the postmodernist age, which is in itselfa far cry from ordering reality into any kind of vision of wholeness. Kosovelnevertheless strove, in line with other avant-garde poets, to encapsulate thePrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue163
KOSOVEL’s poeticswhole, if not of the world, then of man, in spite of having doubts about theconventional connections between this topic and the means with which it isconstructed. He presented texts which were close to the principle of “an openpiece of work” with loose composition; he rejected the mimetic approach inart, favouring other means of lending expression to reality, such as note-taking.He was inspired by other arts and means of communication: painting,newspapers, photography. He was professing a crisis in art, and within thefield of literary genre theory he promoted genre conventions. His literary andaesthetic consciousness was characterised by exceptional intuition, whichamong other things made apparent the limitations of language as communicativemeans. For this reason he went on to exploit the visual potential ofwords: graphic and typography 3 .It is said that Kosovel’s poetic expression and artistic outlook were sharpenedthrough the settling of accounts with constructivism and by enteringthe domain of constructivism, more precisely, the intellectual and aestheticspace between cons poems and integrals. All interpreters of Kosovel’s creativityunanimously claim that cons poems are the poet’s expression of theconstructivist aesthetics, whereas the integrals convey revolutionary humanismaspiring for consummate man. I would argue that the integrals arepoetically as yet an unworked idea of man and the idea of poetry. Whereascons poems can be read as poetic construction, integrals are an instanceof poetic disintegration. Under the designation of integrals fall all thosepoems that concern themselves with human values and values of a poet asa human being. Kosovel himself envisaged them above all as the sum of allpoetic consequences drawn from the surrounding reality. This idea is suggestedalso by the title of the unpublished collection.Integral, which in the Slovenian language denotes totality, is a mathematicaland physical concept. Kosovel found it useful when he was goingthrough his constructivist “stage”, and was incorporating into the poeticstructure different information codes, including chemical and mathematicalsigns, so as to demonstrate the great wealth and diversity of informationbearing on our perception and understanding of reality. A poetic renderingshould be some kind of a resultant of these codes, creating at the same timea communication mosaic. The main idea was to penetrate the essence of reality,a reality into which man is fully inscribed, through a new, unrestrictedstructure of an artistic text. Because poetry for Kosovel was closely boundup with reality, we can assume that he intuitively sought access to its secretmechanism and meaning. For that he needed both senses and reason. Thesenses told him to include visual communication into the text and to searchfor a poetic correlative in consonance with the iconosphere and modes ofperception deriving from it. Reason commanded a search for the key to themost objective possible ordering of experience. More than likely it was thisthat made Kosovel turn his attention to mathematics.The author of cons poems could observe similar strivings in artists, particularlyin painters and architects, who used mathematical equations fororganising space. Numeric laws were a favourite with the painters constructivists.This principle, however, was commonly a source of disagree-164
Bożena Tokarz: The Idea behind the Integrals in Kosovel’s Poetryment between painters and poets, since words cannot be merely counted,being carriers of meaning as well as concrete things. Not all poets werewilling – and neither are they today – to acknowledge the concrete materialityof words. Julian Przyboś, for example, was not happy with thegraphic design of his poetry collection Sponad (Beyond), which was thework of Strzemiński (the title of the first edition was written out differently:Z ponad (Be yond). He refused to have it reprinted in this form, because hefelt that the graphic make-up was detrimental to the poems. In spite of thisthe relations between Julian Przyboś and Strzemiński continued to be creativeall-round 4 . Przyboś, like Tadeusz Peiper, felt that the ways of creatingthe whole in poetry are different to the ways this is achieved in painting. Inthe pictorial code they saw an element of the text that could not be madesubordinate exclusively to the visual ordering, especially not the numericallaws. Numerical yardstick was also the reason why Peiper rejected the suggestionof the constructivist artist Strzemiński to use fixed clusters of word,ordered into different compositions on the basis of numerical laws 5 , whichis what Strzemiński did in his unist compositions.Like the two Polish poets, Kosovel objected to mathematical automatisationof words, but for different reasons. Still, mathematics was to hima model for the objectifying potential of human reason, which is why hedrew on it in his search for the essence of humanity. He strove to understandthe quintessential man in much the same way that the original functionis determined in the mathematical process of integration with the aidof a derived one. He was acquainted with Malevich’s Suprematism andthe Russian variant of Constructivism; through the literary journal Zenitand the Slovene painter Avgust Černigoj, he was introduced to the theoryof El Lissitzky. It is impossible to believe – as the Kosovel scholar JanezVrečko 6 purports – that Kosovel was unfamiliar with Ilya Ehrenburg’s constructivismand Vladimir Tatlin’s spacial constructivism, though they didnot provide him with a rationale that would integrate perception, feelingand reason, and which would have corresponded to Tadeusz Peiper’s conceptionof metaphor and sentence. Kosovel also rejected facile transpositionsfrom one field of art to another, even though he himself drew uponthem as distinct information codes. It goes without saying that it was fromthe Constructivists that he adopted the idea of bringing poetry closer toreality by transforming it aesthetically. What contributed significantly toKosovel’s precipitation of this view was Russian Constructivism (the influencewas not direct but possibly came through Grahor and the literarymagazine Zenit), to which he made references with some reservations. Inhis letter to Fanica Obidova dated 27 June 1925, he wrote:[…] I’ve decided to cross over to the Left. Out of absolute negation, nihilism.[…]. […] pity I cannot consent to “any form of dictatorship whatsoever”.Even though my sympathies have always been with the Left, I couldnever understand their narrow-mindedness. […] I am on their side, thoughtheoretically I am very far from agreeing with them. 7Kosovel was drawn to the Left by their ideological commitment andtheir striving for reality, but he was afraid of extremism. What he saw as165
KOSOVEL’s poeticslacking in the Left was a wholeness (every dictatorship is a reduction), andalso a coherent artistic vision both from the perspective of everyday needsand the needs of poetry. The integrals were to be a way of achieving thisartistic vision, as yet different to all the existing variants of constructivism,since it was to be based on the antinomy of life and art, of both belongingand being autonomous. The integrals were conceived as the outcome ofthe logical, rational process of conceptualisation of things, events and ourperceptions of them. The title itself points to this, appealing as it does to theorganising faculties of reason.Integral is the outcome of the process of integrating – of finding a newfunction with the help of a derived one, or, to put it differently, integral isa new function the derivative of which is the original function. A functioncan help us establish its derivative, its basic information which containsthe smallest possible number of unknowns. Such derived function conveyssome of the function’s concrete characteristics, such as falling or risingvalue (slope), maximum or minimum point (limit). A derivative is also afunction, but a function of a “lower” rank. It carries hidden within itselfinformation about the original function. Thus it is possible to reconstructthe original function on the basis of the derivative one. In addition to that,a given integral can represent certain abstract mathematical and physicalquantities. In order to grasp what integral is, we need to understand whatfunction and its derivatives are, or what the more elementary forms of acomplex function (the whole or a sample of the whole) are, and whetherthese are at the same time autonomous forms. By bringing integration intoplay, we are investigating what is at the same time an autonomous phenomenon(a special value) and a derivative of another more basic, fundamentalphenomenon, which thereby carries within itself information about somethingmore elementary. 8Kosovel strongly objected to the automatisation which was the by-productof the perpetual technological development grounded in scientificfindings, but he did not reject science as such; science could play a vitalpart in making sense of reality. Although he was never very explicit aboutscience, his poetic ideas were clearly – and visibly – inspired by scientificthinking. He also endowed art with cognitive powers, which were, ofcourse, to be put to man’s service. The integrals were to become the corefoundation of his poetic agenda, which he had already embarked upon withhis articulations of reality (recording of polarities) and which was to culminatein an original poetic conception. Perhaps this is why Kosovel did notuse the word integral as a designation for all the poems that were to featurein the poetry collection but limited himself to one poem and the title of thecollection. Separate texts bore separate titles, since they were all partakingin the process of integration, which is to say in the process of penetratingnot only the essence of things with the help of a function in the form of theoriginal – a complex phenomenon – but also other basic items of informationembedded in the derivatives. Symbolic language in poetry creates suchpossibilities because it at the same time denotes and connotes. Connectingpoems referred to as integrals with scientific thinking underwrites the part166
Bożena Tokarz: The Idea behind the Integrals in Kosovel’s Poetryplayed by reason in the artistic ordering of existence. This is not so muchcommending reason as it is allowing it to take poetic decisions. Again,the very project of the collection Integrals – and we can surmise only onthe level of its conception, since the actual content of the volume cannotbe reconstructed – bears this out. Namely, integral demonstrates the logicalseamless process of engendering new forms and phenomena; for autonomousforms we always seek out the elementary forms and … morecomplex ones are always discovered in derivative functions. A variant of agiven integral translated into poetry would thus enable the presentation ofcertain abstract values which bear on man’s axiological system: aesthetic,ethical, philosophical, social, political, etc. Poetic intervention into realitythus becomes the seizing of reality itself. The principle of reason in verbalizedform is a description of reality; if paralysed in the process of describing,it cannot work. It is therefore hard to say what direction Kosovel’spoetry would have taken, but it would undoubtedly have retained strongtendencies towards encapsulating totality in a valid formula – in poeticconstruction. Exploiting the process of integration should not lead to levelingout the contradictions the poet observes. It is difficult, however, topredict how the reinforced logic of thinking would be squared with theobjectively given phenomena of polarities, the servility, or the utilitarianfunction, of poetry with its specificity derived from creating a world whichis an alternative to the world of reality. When Kosovel speaks of such aworld, he often resorts to the figure of titanic poetry. The poet as subjectputs up a struggle for mankind, for a new world, devoting to this his energyand his replenishing powers (as for example in poems Autumn Quiet, RedRocket, Death, etc.). Given that Slovenian poetry has no titanic or messianictradition, but only expressionist lyrics of affliction and revolt, we cansurmise that Kosovel’s poetry was a reanimation and a reworking of theidea of the poet’s rebellious world. Kosovel as subject is in fact the agent ofthe process of integration. He is the one removing all the blinds concealingthe true essence of man. In his expressionist poems such key words as veil,blind, cobweb, mask, curtain crop up frequently. The poetic technique ofintegration, on the level of semantics, correlates to the tearing of curtains,cutting out film shots, reflections and notations.Kosovel’s cons poems can be seen as attempts to solve integrals whichelude generic categorisation. In both cons poems and integrals the poetstrove for the same goal – to present the heterogeneity of the world in hisown poetic experience. The cons poems, as well as collages, which emergedfrom the poet’s encounter with futurism, mark an evolutionary stage inKosovel’s shaping of his conception of poetic expression. Neither are theintegrals the end result or achievement of anything, but merely an expressionof an artistic idea, which Kosovel did not manage to realize. In fact, hisown conception of the integrals binds him more strongly to constructivismthan do his cons poems which draw on the constructivist technique, forit was the integrals that were to complete the creative synthesis of senseperceptions (seeing), emotional response and rationality. Which were thepoems Kosovel had in mind remains grounds for speculation. We should167
KOSOVEL’s poeticsnot fail to notice, however, that cons poems – as is clear from their poetics– were conceived as a stage of development in penetrating the essence ofthe world, man and most probably also poetry. In this sense they were alsointegrals, that is to say, an analytical procedure that makes evaluation ofthings possible in the first place. The poetry that Kosovel was writing at thetime of the integrals does not however suggest any major re-evaluationswithin the framework of poetic expression, it simply suggests the idea ofconstructing a better world with the help of poetry. In this process destructionand construction come into friction. Destruction could be said to serveconstruction not only on the level of idea and value but also on the level ofpoetic rendering.Particularly in the cons poems, destruction runs its course in the name ofconstruction, to be consummated in the spirit of the addressee, and whichhas its textual signals primarily in the composition (which gives the impressionof arbitrariness, though in fact there is little that is arbitrary aboutit), and in the exploitation of diverse languages or linguistic codes.Anton Ocvirk, the editor-in-chief of Srečko Kosovel’s legacy, had includedcons poems among the texts designated as Integrals on two occasions:first in 1967, when he published the collection Integrali (Integrals),and then in 1974, when he set these poems apart under the joint headingin the second volume of Srečko Kosovel’s Zbrano delo (Collected Works).The publication of Integrals has in itself raised a lot of doubts and goodmany questions related to the artistic evolution of this avant-garde poet 9 .Janez Vrečko’s contribution to the debate, particularly his book SrečkoKosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem (Srečko Kosovel,the Slovenian Historical Avant-garde and Zenitism) (1986), through the assessmentof all key materials and the poet’s meta-poetic statements, helpsthrow light on the phenomenon of Kosovel’s poetry, least part of which isalso defining the structure and function of cons poems.In spite of the disputes that this segment of Kosovel’s poetry generatedamong the Slovenian literary historians, if it were not for the publicationof the collection Integrals under the editorship of Anton Ocvirk,Kosovel would not have been perceived as an extraordinary phenomenonin Slovenian poetry, and that mainly for the constructivist poems. His constructivism,however, was not as constructivist as that of the Russian poets,for example Ilya Selvinski, or in Poland of Tadeusz Peiper, whose poetryhas been designated as closest to constructivism. In his letters and manifestoes,Kosovel often expressed his faith in New Man, but he also perceivedthe forthcoming dangers of civili<strong>za</strong>tion. New Man for Kosovel wasthe embodiment of the idea of absolute humanity and the complexity ofexistence. 10 Kosovel did not reduce him to a social function circumscribedby technology, but was able to perceive him in a wider context.Constructivism for Kosovel was but one stage in his search for absolutehumanity in poetry, expressed in all complexity and integr(al)ity of apoem.The complexity of cons poems is communicated through their thematicand stylistic diversity, which gives the impression of a multitude of voices.168
Bożena Tokarz: The Idea behind the Integrals in Kosovel’s PoetryBut these do not engender chaos, since the text of the poem presents thereader with a carefully orchestrated selection of voices intended to firstaccentuate existing polarities and contradictions so as to resolve them, andthus open up a possibility of an integral image. When Kosovel is breakingdown the traditional mechanisms of a closed definitive lyric text, it seemshe is not providing ready-made new ones, but fully engages the reader tomake connections between parallel items of information and derive a finalconceptuali<strong>za</strong>tion as regards a state or phenomenon. Ways of conceptuali<strong>za</strong>tion,however, are most often implicated by a more or less emphasizedsemantic knot in the text (be it graphically and verbally, or just verbally).Drawing the reader into active participation in creating and perceiving agiven text was connected with the function Slovenian artists prescribedto poetry. A poem should not only generate aesthetic experience, but alsostimulate one to think and to act. Aesthetic problems should be resolvedalong with the fulfilling of the pragmatic function. Kosovel harboureddoubts in relation to perceived reality.Cons poems are not characterized by the integr(al)ity of a poem. On thebasic level of what a poem says, they are incoherent, and the speaker of thepoem seems just as disorientated as are his collected articulations of reality,even when his presence is revealed in the text. Nevertheless, there is a kindof thread connecting the apparently autonomous and disconnected itemsof information, the various statements and cries. This connective functionis most often fulfilled through negation, which stems from the fragmentedcomposition, the various fragments relating some fact, event, response oract, and which inhabit one linguistic space, forging inter-textual relationswhile at the same time directing towards extrinsic reality. These bits ofinformation, when taken out of their context, point to fissures and shortcomingsof the real world, thereby evoking feelings of resentment and negation.The attraction of cons poems is in that they are – seemingly – unfinished,that there is such differentiation among the texts, and that they areinternally so heterogeneous. The overriding idea of these poems is thatof openness, which is apparent already on the level of construction. Theunderlying principle of their construction is a mosaic, which enables theinclusion of different items of information and information codes into thestructure of the poem: anything from a sentence, mathematical and logicalsigns, chemical symbols, labels, slogans, newspaper and magazine quotes,to styli<strong>za</strong>tion of folk songs and the various forms of inter-textual referencing.The mosaic is constituted from entities which have already been usedin another context, and from which a completed whole can never emerge;what can emerge is a dynamic whole subjected to constant changes. Itsordering function is assumed by semantics, and meaning is accessiblethrough the semantic knot of the text or the common associative circle.Given the heterogeneity of the poems’ materials and the ambivalent stanceof the subject, most cons poems are not characterised by a mono-centricdelivery typical of lyrical poetry. The “I” of the poem is neither orderingthe world nor striving to verbalize its own emotional state every time anew.169
KOSOVEL’s poeticsKosovel’s shunning of reductionism gives the reader greater possibilitiesfor interpreting the world.When Kosovel rejected the primacy of technology but accepted its usefulness,he was exploiting the perception mechanisms that were engenderedby the technical civili<strong>za</strong>tion. Cons poems were clearly attempts atusing the various perception techniques created by his day and age. Whatappears to be destructive in these poems is in fact an outcome of the mosaicconstruction with its uses of contrast and parallelism.Even though cons poems employ the poetic techniques of constructivism,futurism and expressionism, their sketchy or draft construction neverthelesssets them apart from these avant-garde poetic forms. When in hispoetry Kosovel gave up homogeneity (of stance and material) on accountof heterogeneity, he renounced the so-called purity of verbal art. When hesaw the coming dangers of the 20 th -century civili<strong>za</strong>tion, he internalized inpoetry the most characteristic features of his age.Integrals were therefore meant to materialize – in poetry – consummateman with his multifarious sensitivity, ethics, social and national awareness:a human being who is the central figure on Earth (the Sun-Man) andan element of the Universe. In part, this idea overlapped with the utopiantheory of the historical avant-garde. The orientation of these poems wastowards the idea of absolute humanity and their addressee was envisagedas a constructive man, understood without reductive constraints. Some poemsfrom Ocvirk’s edition of Integrals bear direct thematic correspondenceto this idea, as for example: Contemporary Lethargy, A Streetlamp,A Kaleidoscope, A Small Coat as well as many others. The collectionIntegrals is thus characterized by a unity of content, and their formal aspectputs them on a par with other forms of the avant-garde free verse. In mostcases they follow the stan<strong>za</strong> structure, lines are consistently unrhymed andrhythmically regular, and they are characterized by mono-centric enunciationwhich enhances the ordering function of the lyrical subject. Unlikethe cons poems, they feature a limited scope of codes external to poetry.Integrals form longer entities, and on account of their closed structure,which is based on various kinds of repetition (including anti-metabola),they set forth explicitly formulated ideas:Be a lamp, ifyou cannot be man;For it is hard to be man.Man has only two handsBut he should help thousands.Therefore be a streetlamp shiningOnto the faces of a thousand happy ones,Shining for the lonely, for the wandering.So be a lamp with only one light,Be man in a magic squareSignaling with a green hand.Be a lamp, a lamp,A lamp. 11170
Bożena Tokarz: The Idea behind the Integrals in Kosovel’s PoetryIt needs to be expressly stated that the term integrals can be used to designateall poems, with the exception of the cons poems, which were writtenin the months between spring and autumn 1925 and which are dominatedby the idea of consummate man. Why there has been so much speculationand imprecision over this question is because Slovenian literary historianscould not determine a definitive corpus of texts, which does not in any wayalter the estimation of this segment of Kosovel’s creativity. The letters andnotes in his Dnevniki (Journals) make it clear that Kosovel was writingcons poems and integrals at the same time, and in his letter to Obidovawe read of his planning a book of poems entitled Integrals, which was tohave an introduction. Perhaps this could have been the poems’ sequencein the collection: a cons (as a lead-in) followed by a poem. This would bein consonance with the expressive purpose of the integral: integral is anoperation based on a particular mental process, through which we can accesscertain information, and derive the starting point. It conveys a processof investigating an autonomous phenomenon that is derived from anotherphenomenon. Therefore cons poems could have been envisaged in this roleof partial functions, following the idea of appearing in combination withanother poem which builds on the result of the undertaken operation. Thiswould also enable Kosovel to read his poems at a literary reading he wasplanning (he wrote about the preparations leading up to this event in a letterto Obidova), with the exception of those cons poems whose graphicand visual components rendered them inappropriate for public reading.That these assumptions are not at all far-fetched can be seen if we readKosovel’s poetry alongside his notes and journal entries. Kosovel’s notesin Journals are very often sketches of poems or drafts of articles and lectures,though – it seems – they were first notes of ideas, thoughts and facts,and only then became material for poetry. The impression that cons poemsare really drafts largely stems from Kosovel’s manner of note taking.We cannot establish with certainty whether Integrals were the end goal inKosovel’s poetic conception. Probably not, since in his letters (including toObidova) he often wrote not only of his need to work intensely but also ofhaving still so much to learn and a long way to go, and of wanting to travelabroad in order to find out about the latest creative achievements, artisticoutlooks and solutions.If it is true that Kosovel’s end goal was the poetic formation of “integral”man and his vision, traces of this are discernible also in his cons poems,which were unquestionably taken to be constructivist poems. Althoughcons poems do entail elements of constructivist poetics, their structure,bent on exploding an image, strives for openness rather than a closed constructivistwhole.Cons poems are predicated on the prevailing logic of representation¸that is on reality emerging as second-hand, with its replicas in the formof fragments or observations incorporated into the poem (for example: aslogan, title, label, linguistic code, etc). Integrals create performances, thefocus and perspective of which are for the observer largely determined.Their meaning for the reader is legible, and the text does not strictly de-171
KOSOVEL’s poeticsmand creative participation on the part of the reader. Both cons poems andintegrals refer to vaguely defined categories of literary genre, but preciselyas such trans-genre terms they characterize Kosovel’s poetic and philosophicalconsciousness. The constitutive feature of this consciousness ispolarity, which applies as much to chaos as to the phenomenon of consummateexistence. The latter transcends the representational possibilitiesof poetry. Reproduction of reality is by necessity doomed to uncertainty,which is why the author of cons poems chose a fragment, convinced itmust be a part of some whole entity. In the same way that polarity canexist within a totality, construction is possible as part of destruction andvice versa, for the subjective is coexistent with the objective, microcosmwith macrocosm. The relations between these arise out of connections perpetuallygenerated between the subject and the object and other subjects.For Kosovel the warrant for these ever-emerging connections had alwaysbeen emotion, spirit and reason, all partaking in the process of communication,which is made possible by feelings of compassion and man’s ethicalneeds.Translated by Ana JelnikarNOTES1The cake referred to in the original “gibanica”, layers of pastry filled withcottage cheese and poppy seeds, traditional for the east and south-eastern part ofSlovenia.2See Srečko Kosovel: Zbrano delo (Collected Works). Third volume (part I), ed.by Anton Ocvirk, Ljubljana: DZS, 1977, p. 688.3See Grzegorz Gazda: Słownik europejskich kierunków i grup literackich XXwieku. Wars<strong>za</strong>wa: PWN, 2000, pp. 34–44.4See Seweryna Wysłouch: Literatura a sztuki wizualne. Wars<strong>za</strong>wa: PWN 194,pp. 36–61.5Tadeusz Pepier: Rytm nowoczesny. V: N.: d.: Tędy. Nowe usta. Foreword,commentary, biographical commentary: Stanisław Jaworski. Kraków: WydawnictwoLiterackie, 1972, p. 90.6See Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda inzenitizem. Maribor: Obzorja, 1986, p. 147.7Srečko Kosovel: Zbrano delo. Vol III (Part I), p. 400.8See, Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna. T. II. Wars<strong>za</strong>wa: PWN 1963, pp.272–275.9See Matjaž Kmecel: »Torej še enkrat o Srečku Kosovelu«. Jezik in slovstvo1971/72, no. 4: Franc Zdravec: Srečko Kosovel. Koper-Trst: Založba Lipa in Založništvotržaškega tiska, 1986; Boris Paternu: »Slovenski modernizem«. Sodobnost1985, no 11; Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda inzenitizem.10See Janez Vrečko: »Konstruktivizem, futurizem in branje Kosovelovih konsov«.[1]. Delo 1988, no. 121, [supplement:] Književni listi, s. 4. This differencewas not noted by Anton Ocvirk when he was presenting cons poems and integrals asan undivided whole – see Anton Ocvirk: »Srečko Kosovel in konstruktivizem«. In:172
Bożena Tokarz: The Idea behind the Integrals in Kosovel’s PoetrySrečko Kosovel: Integrali’ 26. ed. by Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba,1967, pp. 5–112 and Srečko Kosovel: Zbrano delo. Volume III (Part two)…11“A Streetlamp” tr. by Nike Kocijančič Pokorn, from Srečko Kosovel: Integrals,tr. by Nike Kocijančič Pokorn, Katarina Jerin, Philip Burt (Ljubljana: SloveneWriter’s Association, 1998), p. 173.• ABSTRACTUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / cons / integralsLike many avant-garde artists, Kosovel believed in the connection between theworld and humanity, the Earth and the Universe. He regarded poetry as an expressionof human sensitivity, man’s reason as well as his emotional and empatheticfaculties. Thus, he recognised the aesthetic, as well as gnoseological valueof poetry. In striving for the integral human being, he saw the need for art andliterature to analyse and synthesise the phoenomena of life. His efforts resultedin poems denominated as “konsi” (“cons” poems) and “integrali” (integrals)– both of which encapsulate his aesthetic quest and his Weltanschauung.The word integral is a concept from the fields of mathematics and physics.Kosovel discovered its analytic and synthetic utility in the period of his constructivistexperiments. The integral is the outcome of a process of integration,in which the primary function is determined with the aid of a derived one.The derived function enables the discovery of a primary and more elementarypiece of information on the basis of the smallest possible number of unknowns.The process of integration is therefore used to study what is simultaneously anautonomous phenomenon and a derivative ofsome other, more elementary orfundamental phenomenon.This yields a sense of the interconnectedness of phenomena and their continuity,which is not always immediately apparent. Kosovel’s “cons” poemsinclude elements that seem to be autonomous, but are, in fact, derivatives. Thepoet subjects them to a process of integration in order to reach or construct theintegral human being, the essence of humanity, that is, the quintessential humanbeing.173
Srečko Kosoveland the European avant-gardeJanez VrečkoFaculty of Arts, Ljubljana, SloveniaI.The Slovene poet Srečko Kosovel was born in the Austro-HungarianEmpire on 18 th March 1904 in Sežana, near Trieste. He grew up in a nationallyconscious teacher’s family. 1 In 1916 he went to the polytechnicschool in Ljubljana, since his parents wished to spare him from the horrorsof the First World War. After this war, a third of the Slovene peoplefound themselves transformed from subjects of the Habsburg dynasty intosubjects of the Savoy kings, which for them was a catastrophic historicalrupture. Even by the end of 1918 the Fascists had broken into the premisesof the Slovenian bishopric in Trieste, and later forced the bishop to quit hisdiocese. In the middle of 1920, with the tacit consent of the authorities,the Fascists burnt down the Narodni dom cultural centre, the most visibleand powerful focus of Slovene presence in Trieste. This arson attack wasa baptism of fire presaging Fascism, and an introduction to the oppressionthat escalated especially after October 1922, when the Fascists came topower in Italy. They dismantled everything that was Slovene, from politicalparties to cultural societies, banned the Slovene language from publicuse, Italianised Slovene surnames, and suppressed periodical publications.School reforms in 1923 made Italian the exclusive language of instructionin schools. Numerous poets, writers and journalists had to leave the narrowconfines of the Primorska (coastal) region homeland.The fate of the Primorska region after the First World War was extremelytraumatic for Kosovel. He observed with fear how nationalism and militarismwere growing, and how Trieste was being transformed from an open,multilingual city, into a place of intolerance and brutal settling of scoreswith opponents of the regime; among them were quite a few Slovenes whowere friends of Kosovel. He had similar criticism, too, for the state of thesouthern Slavs, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, for he soon1The article was first published in: Srečko Kosovel, Man in a Magic Square.Translated by Nike Kocjančič Pokorn, Katarina Jerin, Philip Burt. Ljubljana: MyraLocatelli, k.d. and Mobitel, d.d., 2004.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue175
KOSOVEL’s poeticsrealised how much of a threat to the Slovenes Serbian nationalism wasbecoming. In their centralising zeal, Serb politicians detected separatisttendencies in every single cultural and social activity. Along the lines ofBengali writer Tagore, Kosovel separated nationality, which meant to himsomething spiritual, from nationalism, which he held to be a material force.Kosovel rejected Fascism in Italy and the nationalism of ‘Greater Serbia’of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as “militarised nationalism”.The poet soon felt the aggression of the Greater Serbia policy himself, forhe was not given a grant that would have been essential for him after theforced retirement of his father, who lost his job because he was a proudSlovene (Pirjevec, 12). His father’s wish was that his son train as a forestryengineer, and in that way he could have worked professionally in afforestingthe Karst, but this was not to be, for in 1922 Kosovel began Slavonicand Romance studies at University of Ljubljana.IIWho was the poet Srečko Kosovel, who confidently wrote at the age of 20that his “life is Slovene, modern, European and eternal” (3, 321)? Althoughhe belonged to one of the smallest European nations, as a poet and thinkerhe sought solutions not just for himself and his own nation, but acted forthe “salvation of mankind”. We have a good reason to ask, therefore, howdid he understand his poetic calling and the position of the intellectual in aEurope devastated by the First World War and in the early stages of a newworld crisis?IIIKosovel was revealed extremely slowly. A year after his death, in 1927, hisfriends published the selection Poems; 1930 saw the publication of SelectedPoems, and in 1946, the first volume of Collected Works was published, thiscollection only becoming complete with the third volume in 1977. In 1967Kosovel’s experimental poetry appeared in an independent collection, andthis then exposed a “hitherto unknown chapter in Slovene literature, whichwe might also call the European avant-garde” (Flaker, 1983, 7).His poetic opus embraces impressionist poetry, but in 1924 and 1925,when he became familiar with Italian futurism, German expressionism,zenitism, Berlin constructivism and Russian constructivism, his poetry progressedto an experimental phase, into his famous cons poems, as he himselfcalled them. From the late summer of 1925 on, he also devoted himself torevolutionary poetry. What is specifically interesting about Kosovel is thathe was involved in all three “orientations” simultaneously, and therefore didnot abandon impressionism during his avant-garde and politically orientatedphase. For many years, readers only knew Kosovel from his impressionistpoetry and partly through his later political writings. In the mid-sixties he176
Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel and the European avant-gardealso became appealing as an avant-garde poet, for until then only around 15poems from the “department of constructions” had been published.It was precisely Kosovel’s exceptionally intense poetic and intellectual fatethat spurred a range of literary-historical research. In this way it was finallyestablished in the middle of the eighties that the Slovenes were involved inan intensive way in the avant-garde movements of the 1920’s, which todaywe label collectively the historical avant-garde, and this then showed thatit was precisely Kosovel who was responsible for phenomena that entirelysatisfied the criteria of the European avant-gardes. This overturned conclusivelyWillet’s contention that there were no avant-garde movements southof the line running from Vienna to Budapest (Willet 1978, 9).The Slovene historical avant-garde may consequently be seen as a singleand continuous movement, since from the intermediary aspect the experimentationstretches from literature through to the fine arts, theatre and music,and also incorporates the constitutive elements of every avant-garde,complete with public appearances, group activities, manifestoes, magazinesand a logical sequence of aesthetic, ethical and political re-evaluation.Kosovel represents the internal constant of this movement.IVThus far, literary doctrine has been led to link Kosovel with constructivismby the fact that primarily in his diaries and correspondence he frequentlymentioned this concept, and that he called his poems by the abbreviationcons, which was also to be the name of the magazine which he intended topublish and manage as editor-in-chief.Despite this, some linked him to Italian futurism, although a merely fleetinglook at his manifesto Mehanikom (To Mechanics) shows that Kosovelwas not one to join in with the futurist reverence for kinetic beauty andmodern technology. He rejected Marinetti’s mechanical man and his “liberatedwords” (parole in libertà) and espoused a new man, which he writeswith capitalised initials. He felt similarly about zenitism and its “words inspace” (Worte im Raum), which to him was mere tinkering.In his poetic repertoire Kosovel used almost all the main words fromthe contemporary technical arsenal, such as automobile, express train,aircraft, torpedo, motor and so on, and he had an ambivalent attitude tothem. It was clear to him that it was the development of modern technologythat had sown the seeds of education among people. “The radio, telegram,mail, railway, steamships, newspapers, and books are the promoters of development”(3, 26). “The automobile is a sensation”, “Automobile 4 km,thoughts 1 km, ambition 100 m”. It was clear to Kosovel that technologywas the fruit of intellect, and was more interesting to the modern personthan art, (see 3, 111), but that it also alienated people, mechanised them,and heartlessly civilised them. Hence Kosovel’s principle that “people cannotbe mechanised”, “man is not an automaton”, and “Fall, dead man...slave of mechanics”. If at first he found the automobile to be a sensation, it177
KOSOVEL’s poeticshad now become a device that “sprays mud”, “The “car has no free will”,“There is no culture in mechanics”, and “Trains are as slow as black snails.Thought is like lightning”. Kosovel’s had a similar attitude to urban civilisation,to its countless illusions, which pressurise people and lead the Westinto inevitable destruction, to the death of Europe. The world of technologyis a world in which man loses his original and organic qualities, his capacityfor paradoxical thinking, that is, the world of the “exhausted Europeanman”, who is in an “ecstasy of death”.All this confirms that Kosovel was indeed far from Marinetti’s view, thathe maintained a distance from the metropolitan, amusement, circus-like,profiteering, treacherous, and entirely mechanised Taylorian environmentof conveyor belts, that he warned against the blind glorification of the “centurythat is mechanising” and against what Marinetti taught: that only thosewho allow themselves to be mechanised will survive. Kosovel sees the solutionin a paradox that signifies for him a “leap from mechanics into life”,whereby he links himself to zenitist terminology in which the paradox isunderstood as flexibility of the mind, as a general condition for existence,and not as absurdity (Zenit, 1922, 13, 17). Emanating distinctly then fromKosovel’s manifesto is the opposition between life, which is alive, sparkling,paradoxical and electric, and mechanics and the mechanical, whichare soulless and cannot comprehend paradoxes. Although his manifesto iswritten as a living appeal to mechanics and drivers, or to the operators ofmodern machines, its substance is intended for those capable of leapingaway from mechanics in order to destroy the man of the machine. Thesecond part of his manifesto is therefore a panegyric to the New Man, theman from places where the “day breaks; do you feel this glitter?”, whomKosovel will also call the constructive man, and the age that will belong tohim, the age of constructiveness (see 3, 591 -783). Kosovel himself tellsus in several places where the art of this new man must seek examples andmodels: where “morning comes, arriving from the east…arriving with ared mantle” (3, 93).VAn important avant-garde movement, which Kosovel knew extremely well,was zenitism. The magazine Zenit, which ranked among the five leadingavant-garde magazines in contemporary Europe, had since its founding in1921 propagated a new art, which would no longer be an elitist art of museumsand coffee-shop decadence, but would be based on the “new foundationsof constructivism”, which would regenerate and Balkanise Europe.This would lead to a new type of culture and person, with a Balkan stampof ethics and direct humanity. For some time Kosovel was quite dangerouslyburdened with zenitism, mentioning it in his diaries every few pages. Heattended two zenitist evenings in Ljubljana, and his estate includes severalzenitist publications, with Zenit and works from the zenitist library evenaccompanying him home on his summer holidays in Tomaj (see 3, 454).178
Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel and the European avant-gardeCorrespondence and diary entries from 1924 indicate that Kosovel madeno mention at all of other magazines apart from Zenit. From the summer of1924 until the late spring of 1925, this was the only avant-garde magazinethat he studied seriously, even “retrospectively”, back to the first issues.This provided him with information on Berlin constructivism, the orientationsof De Stijl, on the Russian productivists, Czech poetists, Italian futuristsand so on. Through this editorial approach for Zenit, its editor Micićshowed a “model of cooperation between avant-gardes that was in factvalid right across Europe. It involved a rapid adoption of views, models,experiences …” (Krečič, 1981, 17). In this connection, Kos points out theexamples and cases of constructivist poetry that were for him “perhaps theclosest, if not the sole practical model of writing poetry in the modernistmanner” (Kos, 1981, 45). It should be pointed out in advance that a distinctionwill need to be made between Kosovel’s zenitist theoretical stage inthe “new manner” and the practical execution of the cons pieces, whichwill of course be far from the zenitist “practical models”.Especially interesting in this respect are Kosovel’s Diary Notes VII, recordedin April and May of 1925, in other words at a time when the poetwas involved intensively with zenitist constructivism, and learned of theirmethods and aims first hand, at zenitist public appearances. He realisedthat poetry could no longer be built on the “expansiveness of emotion”,that “poems cannot be woven out of moonbeams alone” (3, 555), and thepoem Rhymes (Rime) contains numerous elements of Micić’s CategoricalImperative, from rhymes to phrases, declamations and sentimentality. InCons ABC (Kons ABC) he orders his heart to stay cold, “A bottle in acorner says more than a collection of empty rhymes”, and in Culture’sProstitution (Prostituirana kultura) he wonders: “Are you a madman orwhat, weeping with leaves in the wind?” Barking becomes the only counterweightfor the poet, who “howls at the moon” and for whom the onlycure is an enema. Brilliant irony is levelled at the sentimental longing fora woman, through the onomatopoeic sounds of rowing: clap, clap (ibid.).For Kosovel, Micić’s Categorical Imperative became the “programme andfoundation for working with the clear principles of anti-aesthetics”, andhis zenitosophy convinced him of the need to free himself from the obedientbread and butter of sentimentality (Zenit, 1924, 26-33, unpaginated).Kosovel first reckoned with the revolutionary dimensions of zenitist constructivism,then soon after, it seemed to him merely verbal and formallydefinable tinkering with superficial and short-term effects, so he opted for acriticism of Zenit, just as he had dealt with Italian futurism, and in this wayfor a reorientation of his world view and for a different poetic approach.VIFrom all the above it is clear that Kosovel was well acquainted with thenumerous ‘–isms’ of his time; unfortunately, not all of them could be mentionedhere; but he did not espouse any of them, since they involved merely179
KOSOVEL’s poeticsexperimenting with form, merely changing literature and art, and not life asa whole. For this reason he had ultimately to turn towards those orientationswhich, alongside the revolutionised form, also took account of the man ofthe coming “constructive age”, and which, therefore, alongside a revolutionof form, also observed a “revolutionary substance”. Among the movementsof the 1920’s, Russian constructivism came closest, perfectly linking moderntechnology and the new man, Kosovel’s man of the future constructiveage, which was decisive in his turn towards the then political left inSlovenia, and was closely connected to his writing of the cons poems.A comparison between the idealising and fetishising of machines andmodern technology in Italian futurism – which also attempted to mechaniseman, and to the extent that it would be possible at any time to substituteor replace him with another mechanical man or a mechanical part of him –and the symbol of Russian constructivism, Tatlin’s monument to the ThirdInternational, speaks volumes. This idea was never realised, unfortunately,for at that time the tallest building in the world would have been entirelydevoted to man, since through the built-in geometric frames of the cone,pyramid and cylinder, revolving around their own axis and containing aradio station, the biggest library in the world and a clock, its density ofinformation would ensure that the new, “coming” man would be superlativelyinformed. Contrary to the futurist Marinetti, Tatlin was not interestedin the mere idolatry of mechanical technology, where a racing car couldbe more beautiful than Nike of Samothrace (for Kosovel, the automobilewas “a device that sprays mud”), but in a process beginning with man andhis spiritual transformation, which would in turn be followed by a changein economic relations. Kosovel was working on the same wavelength. Tohis essay, preserved in manuscripts under the title The Collapse of Societyand Art (Propad družbe in umetnosti ; see 3/1, 807), Kosovel added in parenthesesand in pencil a subtitle: “The New White Society of the Future”,at which in his opinion it would be possible to arrive only via “white barricades”,in other words, by a bloodless, spiritual revolution.We are trying to establish to what extent Kosovel was acquainted with thefundamental principles of Russian literary constructivism, which functionedas the Literary Centre of Constructivists (LCC), to whom he could have beenintroduced by his friend Ivo Grahor, who illegally emigrated to the SovietUnion in the middle of 1924 and returned home in the winter of 1925.The LCC was characterised by its attempt to synthesise numerousEuropean ‘–isms’. In Grübel’s opinion, this indicates the “synthetic” momentof the constructivist literary movement, an “attempt at merging allknown procedures into a common poetic inventory” (ibid.).Familiarity with the principles of the LCC finally enabled Kosovel tomodify his cons poems for the needs of Slovene literary circles, in whichthere was still a need to accommodate the specific position of language,and thus the poetic idiom. Indeed, in recent Slovene history, literature hada nation-building function, something that also applied to certain other nationsin the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The British historian A. J. P. Taylorestablished for them the notion that they were simply the brainchildren of180
Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel and the European avant-gardepoets. For the Slovenes, the establishment of the state of Serbs, Croats andSlovenes (SCS) after the First World War after many long centuries offeredthe first hope of independent statehood, so the functional alliance of the literaryand the national could now dissolve. At first, Kosovel concurred withthe idea that the historical needs of the nation “in terms of literature haveentirely changed” (3, 710), but it soon turned out that they would still needto be observed, for he realised that Serbian nationalism made the kingdomof the SCS worthless.It was only through the central process of the LCC, through the principleof “gruzification” or the maximum loading of the subject, that Kosovelcould undertake a complete poetic experiment. In the cons poems he synthesisedintensive lyrical elements through mathematical, chemical, pictorial,typographical, and other elements, with political statements. Up tothis point, however, these poems did not differ from zenitist and otherpractical models. Yet since we have established that he could not acceptthese, for these ‘–isms’ derived from a trans-rational, abstract conceptionof the word, and from their random collaging, as was the case forMarinetti’s parole in libertà, for Micić’s Worte im Raum, for the transsenselanguage of the Russian futurists, Kosovel had to opt for “poemsfrom words”, where “each word is a world unto itself”; and only LCCoffered him this possibility. The LCC theoretician Zelinsky had indeedestablished the requirement that a poem as a whole must retain its logicalsemantic dimension. This requirement suited Kosovel particularly well,for he had serious intentions regarding the publication of his cons poems.In his definition of constructivism, Kosovel clearly summarised the requirementof the LCC and Zelinsky: “The substance seeks expression ina living, free, organic form, it seeks to be the substance and the form atthe same time, hence constructivism” (3, 13). It was Kosovel alightingon the synthetic moment of the LCC that finally produced the cons poemsas we know them today, signalling as they do a special feature in theEuropean constructivist context and one of its peaks. This is “an unusualcombination of political declaration and authentic intimate poetry, andthere without a doubt lies its greatest value” (see Flaker, 1983, 77). Inthese poems, “within disintegration there operates integration, and withinthe modernist wreckage, there is still a classical order of things…Antipoetryis transformed into poetry, into the ‘poem’ which Kosovel, in truth,still defended” (Paternu, 1985, 102). Kosovel created spatial, architecturaland visual poems in which there was no place for abstract, coincidental,trans-sense or auto-illustrative conceptions of words. “Letters grow intothe space, voices are like buildings…The gleaming of space… the lightof the word”; “Everything is architecture, poetry, music, there is no morepainting” (3, 718). “Development towards space. Each word is a worldunto itself/movement between these worlds” (3, 769). “Works of art – anarchitectonic problem” (3, 703). Only such a conception of the word allowedKosovel a restitution of the poem through the sensible and logicaluse of verbal and architectural material, where everything still took placein the “light of the word” as its semantic dimension.181
KOSOVEL’s poeticsAll this enables us to understand Kosovel’s perseverance with constructivism,for no other ‘–ism’, no other movement of that time would haveallowed him such syntheses of the experimental, the lyrical and left-wing,infused with the most important aspect - a recognisable meaning. This wasthe point that made Kosovel decide against all movements, from zenitismto futurism, that would not permit or accommodate this. We should mentionhere that Kosovel also adopted from Russian literary constructivismthe requirement that poetic material must be accentuated or made to focuson a previously determined point of construction, which in turn refers backto the entire poem (see Grübel, 1981, 125).If we recall Kosovel’s definition of the constructivist poem, whereby the“Poem must be a complex” (3, 601), and if we understand that complex assomething that is connected within itself, bound, composed into a wholefrom several parts, then we see that this definition was close to the principleof constructivist “gruzification” or loading, since the complex relatedto the montage principle, which is the first condition and material for a‘loaded’ poem, in which the montage principle has been superseded. Heretoo is the difference between Kosovel’s initial, merely theoretical definitionof constructivism, when he still defined a poem as a complex, and hislater practical implementation, when he had already become familiar withRussian literary constructivism, although he had already previously anticipatedbrilliantly the problems and solutions for his cons poems.In these, Kosovel consequently synthesised numerous contemporaryavant-garde trends and ‘loaded’ them on the aesthetic and ideological levels.Of all the ‘–isms’ of the 1920’s, with their typographical, pictorial, ideological,and aesthetic material, Russian literary constructivism alone was committedto the semantic dimension of words and to the restitution of the poemaccording to the principle of the hermeneutic circle, while at the same timeattempting to establish human creativity and freedom; this is why it suitedKosovel so well. He rigorously rejected, however, all those orientationswhich simply advocated free words without meaning, and at the same timesupported the mechanisation of man, mechanical dynamics, the glorificationof modern civilisation with no critical distance. Zenitism, Italian futurismand Berlin constructivism in particular were in his firing-line.Only now is it possible to comprehend what Kosovel had in mind whenhe wrote in his manifesto ‘To Mechanics’ of the first declaration of war onall mechanisms in the kingdom of the SCS, which seemed to have occurredin Slovenia. He was obviously convinced that the shift which neither zenitismnor anyone else within the SCS state was capable of, was actuallyaccomplished in Slovenia, with his cons poetry.In view of all the above, it is also understandable why Kosovel did notdevote himself more to collages. Only three survive: one from April 1925,and two from the end of December 1925. The collages are based on themontage process, on random word collaging, while the fundamental principleof the cons pieces was the constructivist ‘loading’, where montagewas only one of the elements in what was termed the maximum loadingof the content, which must be evident from start to finish. From the avant-182
Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel and the European avant-gardegarde standpoint the collages are more conservative, belonging to a time ofunreflected, avant-garde processes in which primary importance was givento the aesthetic aspect and breaking with tradition, while the ‘loaded’ conspoems were in the service of ethical and political re-evaluation.VIIKosovel began preparing for public appearances and his entry into theSlovene cultural arena, which he called an arena of lies, with an entirelydifferent poetic programme, which should, however, just like his cons poems,advance “parallel to the European development” (3, 658).Experimentation with the cons poems did not bring him liberation; heonly saw it as a path “over the bridge of nihilism to the positive side” (3,398), which he also describes as a shift to the left. “From absolute negation,nihilism, I have gradually moved, with my eyes closed, to the positiveside. With my eyes closed, so that I might first get a little used to it, andthen open them…What a pity that I cannot acknowledge any dictatorshipwhatsoever. Despite the fact that I always sympathised with the left, I couldnot understand their narrow-mindedness. Today I see more: my eyes areopening also to those who until now were locked in theory. And I am withthem” (3, 400). In the same letter, Kosovel predicts that they will “takeover the Mladina paper (3, 400/1), and will be able to “write a good deal”,although this will no longer be in the area of the “most modern”, but in thearea of the “extreme” in the politically revolutionary sense. Indeed, as earlyas 1 st September 1925 we can read in a letter to Fanica Obidova that hewas compiling a collection entitled The Golden Boat (Zlati čoln), which heintended “to sell for sure” in the autumn. At the same time he informs herthat “I started to take an extreme path in my poems, as well; my latest seriesof poems… The ‘Integrals’ have an entirely unique and special character. Ithink I shall hold a reading with them” (3, 402)In this letter Kosovel first says that he has begun composing extremepoetry, with a special character. This would suggest that he must have beenwriting this poetry at the end of summer 1925, when he also “crossed overto the left”, and he also says that he is thinking of holding a reading. Hetherefore emphasises the content of the new poetry, and that correspondsperfectly with his finding that the “revolution of form was too superficialand short-term, while the revolution we are heralding is a revolution of thesubstance of European man” (3, 658). The new substance is tied to the “extremepath”, extreme in the sense of political substance and revolution. Thisis, of course, a vague description of the revolutionary nature of these poemsfrom the ‘Integrals’ series, since the letter was written to a political activist,later a member of the Italian Communist Party, who was involved with poetryfor only a short time, devoting the rest of her life to politics. So Kosovelwrote to her on 27 th July 1925 that he had realised from her last letter whatkind of path she was taking, and added that he himself was also “on thesame path, in other words, I am heading for the same goal” (3, 399).183
KOSOVEL’s poeticsKosovel consequently planned Integrals as a “socialist writer”, who waswriting for the new “constructive man”, while at the same time he wasclearly aware that “the time is coming when we will have to unequivocallystate and declare our words” (3, 568); this, again, is tied to Integrals and thereading Kosovel was planning. The fact that he was hiding his cons poemsfrom his friends and the general public, and that all his plans regarding theirpublication ultimately failed - e.g. the planned magazines Konstrukter andKONS, as well as the fate of Zenit, which at the critical moment was notable to exploit its position and link up with the left - forced Kosovel towardsmore realistic goals, such as the takeover of Mladina, and politicallyextreme poetry in the ‘Integrals’ series, which he would recite in public.Surely, then, the transformation of Kosovel’s poetry from the cons poemsto ‘Integrals’ is a clear consequence of information from outside, informationabout everything that was happening in Russia, where the constructivistswere attempting in a similar way to rescue the futurist revolution that had lostits way, precisely with a renewed and great concern for the masses. In thisway Kosovel’s poetry also acquired enlightenment and didactic dimensions(“Here we will educate everyone” 3, 690). It was also given a new name:constructive poetry, as collected ‘Integrals’, which would be published byStrelci, the publishing house of proletarian writers of the SCS state.Tied to this shift “to the left” is Kosovel’s idea of an “international federationof proletarian writers, firstly here, in the SCS, and then abroad”(3, 698), which again proves how exceptionally well-informed Kosovelwas, since in the first half of the 1920’s no such international literaryorganisation yet existed in Europe (Flaker 1982, 182). We may assumethat this initiative too, like many others, came through Grahor’s intercessionfrom Russia, where in 1923 the LEF established formal ties with theMoscow Federation of Proletarian Writers. In 1924, during Grahor’s stayin Russia, they were joined by the Literary Centre of Constructivists, andthe Federation of Soviet writers was born.According to Kosovel’s plans, the intended federation of SCS writerswould publish ‘Integrals’, collections with introductions (3, 698), novelsetc, all of which would be published by Strelci, the intended publishinghouse of this federation of proletarian writers. That the Integrals collectionswere supposed to bring social and revolutionary poetry can also be seenfrom the fact that Kosovel mentions all these facts in one single JournalIX, on pages 18, 19, 20 and 21. He therefore drew a very clear boundarybetween the cons poems and Integrals.It is also interesting that during the summer months of 1925, whenKosovel was suffering from a creative crisis in his crossing over “to theleft”, he began writing prose, including everything from a few lines to agrand plan novel to be called Kraševci. These attempts of Kosovel indicatethat once again he was abreast of events in Europe, where at that time “thecentre of gravity of the European left shifted from avant-garde poetry to sociallyfunctional prose” (Flaker, 1982, 186). This would not be mentionedwere it not also dependent on events in Russian literary constructivism.We know that after 1924 prose writers began joining the Literary Centre of184
Janez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel and the European avant-gardeConstructivists (see Grübel, 1981, 147); the reason was the already mentionedshift from experimental poetry to functional prose, which was notcommissioned as we might naively expect, from below, from the proletarianbase, but from above, from the Party. The Party indeed adopted theideology of the avant-garde, but not their artistic idiom, and that anticipatedearly on the clash between political and artistic revolutionaries, a clash thatended tragically and hopelessly for the latter.If we add to this the fact that Selvinsky, a leading theoretician of Russianconstructivism, spoke in the Code of Constructivism in 1930 of a “doublerealism” or a realistic realism, and saw the path to it lying in the introductionof prose processes in poetry, which would sideline the inflated languageof futurism, Kosovel’s prose writing makes even more sense. It isthe planned federation of SCS proletarian writers is a very good indicationthat Kosovel made serious and above all very systematic plans for his prosewriting, which were based in very thorough knowledge of all the essentialdevelopments in the then LCC.We should emphasise that even in this decisive shift to the left, Kosoveldid not lose his critical eye and objectivity towards his work. Parallel to thecreation of the Federation of Proletarian Writers, he was pondering whatwas then the very salient issue of the position of intellectuals in the postrevolutionaryperiod, their awakening from sleep (see 3, 673), the attitudeof the poet towards the revolution and whether the revolution was in oppositionto the poet or not (see 3, 746). But above all he intended to demandin his work and from his associates an “intellectual atmosphere that willnot erase the special features from our faces…” (3/1, 811) And all this wasalready happening in the Soviet Union and in the LCC, as we have seen.The fact that the members of the LCC were intensively debating the functionand place of intellectuals and the intelligentsia in Russian post-revolutionarysociety (see Grübel, 167), is another indication that Kosovel wasfamiliar with the LCC.Through the “takeover” of Mladina, Kosovel finally acquired his ownoutlet and seized the initiative on the left-wing front of his day. He tookover from the Independent Farmers’ Party in autumn 1925. The magazinebecame a good basis for left-wing intellectual work up to the Second WorldWar and onwards. The reason for Kosovel taking hold of Mladina lies inthe fact that his plans with Grahor for a monthly magazine Volja (Will) didnot succeed, while Mladina had assured financial support, which broughtKosovel financial security he had never known. With Kosovel, Mladinaacquired a new, constructivist title page as the outward sign of a differentapproach, while Kosovel himself became the leading member of theeditorial board and edited the first issue of its second year. “The model of‘proletarian literature’ within Yugoslavia was introduced in Slovenia, bythe magazine Mladina, in other words a magazine that was not organisedfrom the centre of an international movement. This model is significantfor the whole of Yugoslavia, because it introduced what was called socialliterature, which during the time of strict censorship was a cryptonym for‘proletarian’ and ‘revolutionary’ literature” (Flaker, 1981, 187).185
KOSOVEL’s poeticsKosovel took his pronounced, politically honed programme to the minersof Zagorje in February 1926, where he gave a very well received lectureon “Art and the Proletarian” and read his Ecstasy of Death, and hoped torepeat this a few days later in Ljubljana. However, he came into conflictwith the authorities and they denied him hospitality in two Ljubljana auditoriums.Afterwards he might have fallen silent or gone underground,or even quarrelled with hit too dogmatic friends. He died at the age of 22,without succeeding in publishing the already prepared – complete with introduction– collection of poems The Golden Boat (Zlati čoln), and withoutrealising any of his numerous projects. Nevertheless, it is difficult to comprehend,how such vast poetic and intellectual potential could have beencondensed into such a short human life. The answer was given by the poethimself when he wrote that his life was “Slovene, modern, European andeternal.” (3, 321).Bibliography(3, 321) This indicates the numbering from the Zbrano delo Srečka Kosovela[Collected Works of Srečko Kosovel], edited by Anton Ocvirk, and publishedbetween 1946 and 1977. The first number refers to the volume, the second tothe page.FLAKER, Aleksandar: Poetika osporavanja. [Poetics of Challenge]. Zagreb, 1982.Flaker, Aleksandar: “Konstruktivna poezija Srečka Kosovela”.[The ConstructivePoetry of Srečko Kosovel]. Delo, 28. 7. 1983 (KL, p. 7).GRÜBEL, Rainer: Russischer Konstruktivismus. [Russian Constructivism].Wiesbaden, 1981.KOS, Janko: »Avantgarda in Slovenci«. [The Avant-garde and Slovenes]. Sodobnost8, 9 (1980).KREČIČ, Peter: Slovenski konstruktivizem in njegovi evropski okviri. [SloveneConstructivism and its European FRAMEWORKS]. Ljubljana, Faculty of Artsdissertation, 1981.PATERNU, Boris: »Slovenski modernizem«. [Slovene Modernism]. Sodobnost 11(1985).PIRJEVEC, Marija: »Srečko Kosovel in slovenstvo«. [Srečko Kosovel and theSlovene Identity]. Primorska srečanja 273 (2004).WILLET, John: The New Sobriety 1917–1933. London, 1978.VREČKO, Janez: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda in zenitizem.[Srečko Kosovel, the Slovene Historical Avant-garde and Zenitism]. Maribor,1986.186
• ABSTRactJanez Vrečko: Srečko Kosovel and the European avant-gardeUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / literary avant-garde / constructivismThe paper explores Kosovel’s attitude towards Italian futurism, Balkan zenitismand Russian constructivism. Kosovel’s work as a whole, including hisletters and diary entries, makes it clear that he would not follow the Italian“liberated words” (parole in libertà), because to him – being a Slovenian poet,and particularly a Slovenian from the Primorska region – the word was sacredand untouchable. His manifesto “To the Mechanics” is further proof of hisguarded attitude towards Marinetti’s movement. Similarly, Kosovel rejectedMicić’s zenitism; he saw it as “playing”, whereas he wanted art and life to beabout seriousness, about “simultaneously revolutionising meaning and form”.So it was only after his friend Grahor had returned from the Soviet Union thathe was given a chance - through Russian literary constructivism – to use theprinciple of “gruzification” and “focalisation”, and introduce his famous conspoems, which combine revolutionary form with recognisable meanings. Hisaim was to publish them in a specialised magazine KONS, that he himselfwould edit and publish.In the summer of 1925 he experienced “a shift to the left” and began to createa different, “constructive” poetry. It was intended for publication by a proletarianpublishing house, which he would call Strelci (Shooters). These planswere cut short by his untimely death at 22. Today, his cons poems are unique,and represent one of the pinnacles of European literary constructivism187
Srečko KOSOVEL soveland the Hybridityof ModerniSM nismMarko JuvanThe Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Sciences,Scientific Research Centre of the SASA, Ljubljana, SloveniaThe Distribution of Textsand the Aporias of Kosovel’s ReceptionThe revolutionary idea that history is a narrative construct, an interpretation,has in the last thirty years become all but a truism, appearing even a littleworn-out in the vulgata of the human sciences, and resting comfortably inthe “common sense” of literary historians. In essence, they are nowadayswell aware of the importance of the forms, practices and institutions of distributingliterary works for the interpretation and histori”al contextualisationof literature (cf. Dolinar - Juvan, eds., 2003). In other words, the cognitivesensibility for the mechanisms of representation of the past, for the channelsand media through which it is observed and judged, is today a part of Kuhn’s“normal science”. The systemic approach also fits the general epistemologicalframework – with its perspective which captures texts amidst their literarylife, attached to the social and cultural circumstances of their production,distribution, reception and discursive processing through media, criticism,science or education (cf. Dović 2004). If we recognize these principles ofliterary history, a different aspect of the Srečko Kosovel paradox opens up: 1the incredible diversity of his poetic texts, condensed into a very short periodof time, has been baffling the narratives of literary history and consistentlyoutwitting any and all tools of periodisation.If we apply constructivist or systemic epistemology to the actual exampleof Srečko Kosovel, we might better explain the conflicting classificationsof his poetry within literary history, the aporias of his reception andcanonisation, and the difficulties in shaping the poet’s cultural icon – thenot so negligible reasons for this are precisely those anomalies in the historicalprocesses of publishing and distribution of his work. Briefly, in hisshort life Kosovel published relatively modestly and mainly in marginalnewspapers (he never succeeded in publishing a number of the works thatare today considered his greatest masterpieces); all of his books of poetrywere published posthumously and none were edited according to his ideas,but rather according to strategies by which various editors built the foundationsof Kosovel’s canon (cf. Dović in this publication). It was only inPrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue189
KOSOVEL’s poetics1967, 41 year after his death, that his more radical poetic texts, which up tothat point had only been known in a very limited scope, received recognitionin the form of a book and a preface. They turned out to be a crucial partof Kosovel’s body of work, despite creating the impression of an astoundingdiscord with the perceptions that the public and the literary professionalike held about the poet from the Karst.When in July of 1925 Kosovel defined his position in the world as a“paradox” (Collected Works 3/1: 399–401), he probably could not haveimagined quite how much controversy the reception and periodisation ofhis work and the construction of his canonical image would generate. Howis it possible that despite his eruptive creativity – to which an unboundedlegacy of hastily written pages bears witness – he published so little? Wasit just because as a young man from the rural margins and without socialcapital he could not make his way into the established national journals?Because the editors were unable to grasp his artistic importance (he wasseen as a belated heir to, or even an epigone of the Slovenian “Moderna”)?Perhaps because he was still searching for his poetic outlet and wrote dozensof texts which will hardly ever appear anything more than beginner’sattempts? Or because he was rather critical towards the discourse of themain Slovenian cultural magazines, which he found aesthetically and politicallytoo dependent on prevailing bourgeois ideologies, and out of dateand not radical enough in comparison to what was going on elsewhere inthe world (cf. Zadravec 1986: 412)?To my mind, another equally plausible reason would be that since 1922Kosovel – encouraged by the example of Podbevšek’s avant-garde performancesand, later, his attempts at magazines (Trije labodje [The ThreeSwans] and Rdeči pilot [The Red Pilot]) – planned his own distributionstrategy, different from those common in the Slovenian literary field: 2 forthe publication of his texts, particularly the bolder efforts, he tried to establishan alternative media context, as was developed throughout Europe bymainly artistic and political avant-gardes. In comparison to the establishedliterary institutions it should have been more congenial to his ethical sensibilitytowards modern life, as well as his anti-aesthetic perception of artand his utopian social engagement. In his manuscript On the Mission ofArt (O poslanstvu umetnosti, 1924) he wrote that art was not meant for theconventional “delight in beauty”, because it was “just as strong and lifegoverninga force as, for example, politics, economics; the only differenceis that it is a religious and spiritual force, which is at the same time a preimageof human unity and perfection” (CW 3/1: 86).From the Jena Romanticism (and its Athenäum) to modernism and 20 th -century avant-gardes, the fundamental social form of distributing and establishingmodern aesthetic, ethical and ideological matrixes had been aliterary and artistic circle, a group of people of the same generation withsimilar views. These circles were different ways of bringing together theintellectual elite which – on the fringes of established social norms, aestheticconventions and dominant channels of public cultural communication– developed among its members a remarkably intense exchange of190
MARKO JUVAN: Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernismpotentially relevant information “from the outside”, but mainly of theirown ideas, programmes and achievements. This gave the actions of eachindividual member a significance which recompensed for the possible lackof public recognition. Over and above the strengthened internal communication,feelings of solidarity and axiological, behavioural and discursivecohesion, such groups also sought diverse, sometimes mutually opposingsupport from the outside – either by drawing parallels to or trying to establishcontacts with similar groups at home and abroad, from the past andthe present, or by gaining praise from prominent critics, opinion-makers,and by new forms of patronage and collecting, which speculated on potentialincrease in value of the works of protégés, or by forming allianceswith subversive political movements (cf. Levenson 1991: 6; Rainey 1991).Kosovel, too, followed some of these patterns.In 1922 he launched an ambitious high-school paper Lepa Vida (FairVida). He gathered around him members of his own generation with similarviews; he created a utopian atmosphere in which poetic and theoreticaldiscourses were mutually enriched through debates and readings. Thedistinctly humanistic tone of the ideas of Kosovel’s circle was influencedby utopian socialism, expressionist and Tagorean humanism, Nietzsche,Marxism, social Christianity, Slovenian nationalism of resistance (orientedagainst Italian irredentism and Yugoslav unitarism); they profiled theiraesthetics along anti-bourgeois, modern artistic lines, from the Slovenian“Moderna” and expressionism to futurism, zenitism, constructivism, dadaismand surrealism (cf. Zadravec 1986: 344–68). With his circle, whichwas established in 1925 and named after Ivan Cankar – as a gesture oftribute to the aesthetic and political tradition of the Slovenian “Moderna”– Kosovel organized lectures, artistic performances and readings.In place of the bourgeois and metropolitan public, whose acceptance thegroup could not anyway gain, Kosovel – as an ethically sensitive and alsomore and more class-conscious “cultural worker” – intended to create aspecial new audience, mainly by performing for the proletarians in the provinces(Vrečko 1986: 186–212). In 1925, together with the Bauhaus-educatedpainter Avgust Černigoj, he was unsuccessfully preparing a constructivistmagazine Konstrukter (Constructor), also a literary monthly Volja (TheWill) with his leftist fellow writer Ivo Grahor, and making plans for a radicalleftist publishing house, Strelci (Shooters), and a similarly oriented seriesof books called Integrali (Integrals). In 1925 he and his group neverthelessmanaged to take over the editorial board of Mladina (Youth magazine);in the issues he edited before his death he made it artistically and politicallyavant-garde in tone. He collaborated with young Marxists, members of thecommunist party and admirers of the Soviet Union. However, preciselybecause of the socially marginal channels and media, all his endeavoursremained obscure for a long time. Due to his untimely death, Kosovel wasunable to develop sufficiently forms of alternative literary distribution, tofind and create a suitable public for his poetic production. Although he favouredavant-garde movements and devoted an important part of his workfrom 1924 to 1926 to avant-garde writing, he nonetheless never become191
KOSOVEL’s poeticsa sample avant-gardist, who would lead a group, have a programme andmanifestoes, and provocatively proclaim a new “-ism”. The only manifestohe wrote (To Mechanics [Mehanikom], July 1925) remained in the formof a manuscript. It is debatable whether he would ever have become anavant-gardist, because in his last months – as clearly shown in his lectureArt and the Proletarian (Umetnost in proletarec, February 1926) – he tookup writing and projects concerning “proletarian art”, and at the same time,until the end, continued to write expressionist, impressionist and modernistpoetry that was foreign to radical avant-garde techniques (Gspan 1974:102, 106–7; Zadravec 1986: 197–8; Vrečko 1986: 121–8).Kosovel intended several collections of his own poetry, but none werepublished. Only the Preface to the edited collection Zlati čoln (The GoldenBoat) remains, with a characteristic detachment from his lyric poetry,which he characterised – after his “revolt”, which led him to artistic andpolitical “extremism” – as juvenile and sentimental, “velvety” and surpassed(CW 1: 426–7). An outwardly critical attitude to such poetry canbe seen in many of his auto-referential images: for example “a pianist withiron hands”, pounding on the Karst, that is, the chronotope of the poet’s“velvety poetry”. 3 Besides the occasional love poem, the “velvety poetry”probably included his typical “Karst poems”, in the genre of landscapeand sentimental poetry, neo-romantic, impressionist and symbolist in style(cf. Ocvirk 1967: 53–3; Zadravec 1986: 13–42). Kosovel’s admiration forSlovenian impressionists and his “Karst poetry”, which was prevalent in theearly posthumous editions (Gspan’s from 1927 and Ocvirk’s from 1931),created in the eyes of the public an image of him as heir to the Slovenian“Moderna”, 4 as a late impressionist and symbolist, a melancholic poet ofloneliness, of existential distress, of the Karst homeland. However, thefact that in the last year of his life Kosovel had his monumental poemThe Ecstasy of Death (Eksta<strong>za</strong> smrti) published in the prestigious journalLjubljanski zvon (1925), and even more so the fact that after his death anumber of expressionist and “proletarian” poems were published (for examplethe sonnet cycle The Red Atom [Rdeči atom] in Ljubljanski zvon in1931), were the two factors that even in the decade before WW2 added tothe accepted image of the poet and made him into the exciting figure of anexpressionist visionary, an engaged humanist and harbinger of the crisis ofWestern civilisation, seeker of the “new man”.After WW2, when Slovenia was communist – and although it proclaimeddialectics as its doctrine, the state actually repressed the conflict of ideasin public discourse and replaced it with totalisations – the mechanisms ofcanonisation and ideological adaptation presented Kosovel very harmoniouslyfor a very long time – as heir to the Slovenian “Moderna”, the poet ofthe Karst and at the same time as an expressionist herald of the end of bourgeoisEurope and an engaged social realist. Until 1967, that is, when AntonOcvirk, Kosovel’s literary executor, published Integrali ‘26 (Integrals ‘26).As the editor of a number of books of Kosovel’s poetry (from Izbrane pesmi[Selected Poems, 1931] to the last volume of collected works [Zbranodelo, 1977]), Ocvirk moulded the poet’s public image for nearly half a192
MARKO JUVAN: Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernismcentury. He had held back the publication of that part of Kosovel’s lateproduction (mainly from 1925) that was the most modern, until the rise ofpost-war neo-avant-gardes, when risky experiments in the more relaxedcircumstances of the communist regime enabled some artistic and theoreticaldiscourse susceptible to political and aesthetic transgression. Whenediting the Collected Works (1946) – possibly because of the ephemeraland chaotic appearance of the multitude of pages and tiny pieces of paperfrom the poet’s legacy – Ocvirk still saw them as “fragmentary, incidentalnotes, full of current political and ideological issues” (Ocvirk 1946: 436). 5These were Kosovel’s collages, constructions or Cons poems and othermodernist and avant-garde poems. Suddenly, in 1967 Ocvirk surprisinglyand contrary to his previous openly stated opinions, put them at the topof the poet’s opus of work. Paradoxically, the poet himself obviously haddoubts about publishing these texts, because he was hiding them even fromhis closest friends.After Ocvirk’s belated and shocking publication of Cons poetry, Kosovelstirred the interest of literary science precisely as an avantgardist figure andthis is the image that prevails in the public discourse to this day. 6 Literaryhistorians more or less agreed that his creativity in the last years of his lifewas unusually heterogeneous: the author of poems which follow poetologicalmodels of late romanticism and modernity (particularly impressionismand symbolism) also wrote expressionist, Proletcult and avantgardistpoetry. 7When the paradoxical diversity of Kosovel’s creativity finally appearedin its entirety, it put the literary historiography in a quandary. This wasmade even worse by the fact that historians were used to narrative schemesof development and progress and saw literary trends and periods as internallyhomogeneous entities. Thus Ocvirk (1967: 17–18, 58 ff) claimedthat Kosovel’s poetics followed one another in a temporal sequence: in themiddle of 1925 the poet was supposed to have made a decisive and final“revolt” and turned to “constructivism”. However, other authorities havesince proven that the poet simultaneously practiced various literary trends,“traditional” as well as “modern”, right to the end (cf. M. Kos 1997: 164).In his introduction to Integrals, Ocvirk discovered the pattern for Kosovel’ssurprising switch to avant-garde writing in Russian constructivism. To mymind, however, the search for Kosovel’s primordial and decisive avantgardeideal – besides constructivism, literary historians have stated futurism,and partly dadaism and surrealism – will lead us nowhere. Not onlybecause he took in avant-garde movements mainly through eclectic South-Slavic zenitism, but also because, particularly in Central Europe, the literaryzone of “in-between peripherality” (Tötösy 1999), the avant-garde streamsfrom Italy, Russia, France and Germany in general were creating “unusualmixtures”. 8 And in any case, despite their boastful manifestoes stressingtheir revolutionary innovations, the avant-gardes copied each other; eventhe radical dadaists borrowed from futurism and expressionism. On thesegrounds alone I prefer to speak generally of avant-garde texts as opposedto constructivist, zenitist, futurist or surrealist ones.193
KOSOVEL’s poeticsThe Heterogeneity of Periodsand Kosovel’s Hybrid ModernismThe attempts of literary historians to pinpoint the avant-garde trend thatKosovel belonged to, as well as – on a more general level – efforts to labelhis creative stages and arrange them in chronological order are guided bythe underlying idea that every literary period or trend is internally coherentand grounded in the same “spirit of the time” or arises from a homogeneousartistic code, or stylistic convention. The idea in itself is problematic,because it overlooks the inherent sociolectal stratification and dialogicconflict within a culture. And it fails in particular with regard to the literatureof the so-called “Moderna” period, from the turn of the 20th centuryand onwards (cf. Tamás 1991: 131–2; Matajc 2004), if not of romanticism,when normative poetics, with its principle of imitating model authors, lostits primacy and the conditions for a greater homogeneity of style and spiritof time dissipated. This is when – to paraphrase Barthes’ study – “classicalwriting” disintegrated and was gradually replaced by modern writing,preoccupied by issues of the non-transparency of language itself (Barthes1953). Romanticism was – not only in the scale of world literature, but alsowithin national traditions – very diversified; politically it ranged betweenrevolutionary liberalism, nationalism, Biedermeier conformism and passionateCatholicism; modally, between tragic pathos and irony; and aesthetically,between folklorism, the restoration of historical styles, tendenciestowards naturalness, authenticity and explicitly subjective, artificialimagination. Even more heterogeneous is the mixture of co-existing codesof literary trends within the second half of the 19 th century. Literary historians,and Slovenians are no exception, resignedly labelled them as falling“between romanticism and realism”, or with some similar makeshift designation.The intertwining of diverse orientations comes through even morein modernism. So, for this period in particular it makes sense to let go ofany kind of attempt at forced homogenisation of its concepts, and acceptinstead P. V. Zima’s notion that a period will establish itself precisely as asystem of diversified, but dialogic discourses, each in its own way reactingto a set of problems emblematic of a certain time – in modernism, or rather,in the wider tradition of modernity from Baudelaire onwards, the ambivalenceof the subject would be one such example (cf. Zima 2003). If weaccept this view of the nature of periods in literary history, then we shouldnot explain the diversity of Kosovel’s poetry of the twenties only throughanomalies in the distribution and reception of his texts, that is, in termsof how the writer’s image was historically mediated to us (which was thetheme of the previous chapter). We should see it as an eminent symptom ofmodernism, as a system of divergent sociolects which react to a commonset of problems.In many meta-poetic statements Kosovel suggests that he put his textsinto direct contact with “life”, with contemporaneity; that he faced the materialityof the world and the paradoxical co-existence of truths: “A modernpoet takes apart the form to get to the living, straightforward life.” (CW194
MARKO JUVAN: Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernism3/1: 740); paradox to him is an energy source, undermining the “practicalreason” of the bourgeoisie, and demonstrating “that there exist two truthsinstead of one” (CW 3/1: 399). Modernism is opening to immediate, crudeand disorderly reality in its historical becoming. A contingent reality entersconsciousness as something transitory and strictly simultaneous withthe temporality of existence. This is how the experiencing consciousness(the speaking subject) takes its position in the multitude of ideologies andlanguages, which are in a constant historical flux (cf. de Man 1997; Škulj1991, 1995). Therefore, if my judgement is correct, Kosovel’s insistenceon creating simultaneously in several aesthetic codes should be read as aprime symptom of modernity – as a result of the experience that each ofthe codes covers a certain perspective, thematising one segment of reality,but can no longer symbolically capture a total picture of the world;only an open dialogue among sociolects can still represent it, although onlythrough thousands of facets.Such consciousness was at its peak in modernism, which Peter V. Zimain light of a wider concept of modernity – with its origins in the middle ofthe 19 th century – synonymously calls late modernity (die Spätmoderne); 9to him modernism is “a time of crisis, in which traditional metaphysicsand ideologies prove doubtful; a time which instigates criticism” (e. g.of Hegelian systematic metaphysics) and feelings of contradictions, antinomies,doubt, epistemological and metalinguistic scepsis (Zima 2001:130–1; from K. Jaspers, K. Rosenkranz and D. Fokkema). For late modernityor modernism the ambivalence of all values, criticism of the conceptof reality, representational forms and the individual subject are crucial(ibid.: 132–3). Therefore it is understandable that modernism by spreadingacross national borders – encouraged by modern communication technologies,the voluntary and enforced exiles of artists, by migrations, and lifein urban metropolises where cultural influences from all over the globemingled – instituted the co-existence and pervasion of artistic idioms, apluralism of poetic discourses. Modernism is “the art of an age of modernrelativism, and of a time when frontiers were in vital and often dangerousflux” (Bradbury - McFarlane, eds., 1991: 13), it is characterised by “multiculturalvariety”, “enormous cross-fertili<strong>za</strong>tion” (14), “stylistic plurality”(21), urban “cultural chaos…a contingent and polyglot Tower of Babel”(98), “a frenzy of forms and artistic energies variously expressed and variouslyjustified” (199), “plight of an exploded consciousness caught in afragmented universe” (224–5). Modernism is a reaction to “the scenario ofour chaos”; it is “the art consequent on the dis-establishment of communalreality” (27). A search for style in an age with no style in common, and nohomogeneous representation of reality therefore becomes a highly self-reflexiveendeavour (29).Modernism, therefore, is a constellation of diverse, sometimes opposingpoetics and ethics; and they – not only in individual literary currents, butalso in individual authors or even individual poetic texts, like Eliot’s paradigmaticThe Waste Land – combine into hybrid and ambivalent amalgamations(cf. Tamás 1991: 130–6). There is nothing exceptional in “double195
KOSOVEL’s poeticsloyalty” – the kind that may surprise someone in Kosovel, who jumps fromthe neo-romantic lyric sentiment to cynical newspaper quotes: many of thegreatest modernist masterpieces, among them the novels of Thomas Mann,preserve traditional realistic representation and combine it with a modernx-raying of consciousness and language, so that in one work of art variousconceptions of the world test each other. (Bell 1991: 12–3; Longenbach1991: 125).The axiological and political orientations of modernist writers oscillatedbetween aristocratism and plebeianism, between hermetic aesthetic esotericismand the crudeness of popular culture, between restoring conservativereligious beliefs, bohemian individualist immoralism, and politicalradicalisms, between nihilist depression, odes to modern technology andgrotesque carnivalism, some flirted with fascism, others with communism,and many fell victim to one of the two totalitarianisms (cf. Blair: 1991:157). The spectrum of modernist writing ranged from neo-classicism to thedestruction of all traditional forms, from linguistic and literary self-referentiality(blended with symbolist allusionism and encoding through “de-humanized”abstraction), evocations of direct psycho-existential experience,fantasies, mythologisation and primitivism, to the fragmented recording ofreality and radical criticism of society and ideology, sometimes combinedwith a declared political position (cf. Hough 1991: 315–20).Kosovel was creative in the middle 1920’s, when one can already speakof high modernism 10 in Europe and the USA, and when great artists likePicasso, Eliot, Rilke and Joyce had already confidently intertwined meansof expression chosen from their “imaginary museum” of earlier trends and-isms; many important modernists did not stick to the proclaimed poeticsof individual trends (cf. Bradbury - McFarlane, eds. 1991: 191, 205; Hough1991: 316; Tamás 1991). From this aspect Kosovel, as young as he was– still a beginner looking for “his style” – comes across as an author of highmodernism. It would seem that Kosovel understood perfectly the modernistplurality and simultaneity of diverse artistic voices. He persisted in thisinter-space, in between various literary discourses from the 1920’s: lateimpressionism and symbolism, expressionism, avant-gardism, Proletcult,Neue Sachlichkeit and existential modernism.In his poetry grounded in neo-romanticism, impressionism and symbolism,Kosovel follows the tradition of aesthetic communication typical oflyric poetry from pre-romanticism to the fin de siècle. This pattern of poetryemphasises the exclusion of the poetic world from historical and socialcontexts. In relation to the relevant issues of public discourse, it puts it ina position of ontological and existential silence, or in a position of sensingthe foundations of existence, which at the limits of civilisation is possibleonly through nature. 11 From the singular lyric subject, which appears in thetext through psychologically plausible semiotic clues, comes a first personemotive speech, assuming an equally lonely, private reader and their emotionalcontemplation of the aesthetic image. The actual historical contextsof author and reader are separate; they are replaced by an ontology of theexistential present. The disconnectedness of the lyric discourse from social196
MARKO JUVAN: Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernismreality is not only linguistic; it is also denoted by objects of representation,which in Kosovel are typically themes of loneliness and anxiety, and imagesof the peaceful and empty Karst landscape, trees and birds.Crucial for Kosovel’s poems denoted by literary historians as expressionist(cf. Zadravec 1986: 80–135) is a different axis of poetic communication:the subject of the text suggests to the recipient that their referentialworlds are historically correlated, that the author and his target audienceshare the same social context. Thus the lyric paradigm of individual aestheticcontemplation is taken apart. The aesthetic is overpowered by theethical, and the ethics of poetic writing often focus on the politics of speechacts. Expressionism in general, as well as in Kosovel, is a hybrid poetics.It wavers between traditional expression and an avant-garde stance whichattempts to go beyond the boundary of aesthetic literary conventions andinto the reality of the modern world.Kosovel’s poems with a predominantly expressionist diction are thereforecharacterised by the hypertrophy of the speaking subject, which isthe source of the theatrical, panoramic presentations of the chronotope,which for the most part is no longer rural, bucolic (Karstic), but unlimited,urban, global, even cosmic and mythologised (archetypes of chaos, theFlood). Kosovel’s subject expresses a Nietzschean critique of the valuesof Christian-bourgeois civilisation and praises its “destruction”. Thus he isalready the “new man” of his utopian proclamations. On the other hand, thepoetic “I” perceives itself as a “sub-ject” (in the sense of a subordinate) ofthe historical age in crisis, and experiences the distress of an uncertain metaphysicalhorizon. Nothingness in Kosovel appears through symbols andabstract words (“nothing”, “nothingness”, “nihil”, “nihilo-melancholy”)and sometimes appears as a concrete substance (“from silent emptinessgrows Nothing. / The water from the drainpipe flows away”). 12Kosovel’s expressionist chronotope is defined by the deep axiological,ontological, epistemological, political and social crisis of the bourgeois societyof the 1920’s. With its national and international political mechanisms,with the established artistic and cultural institutions and leading ideologiesand religious concepts, this society had proven incapable of coping withthe fierce challenges of modern times. The thrusts that undermined traditionalways of self-substantiation came from different directions and affecteddifferent social subsystems: from economic stagnation through communistrevolution and the rise of fascism to the advancement of technologyand expansion of scientific findings, which relativised the old foundationsof subject and truth. Kosovel makes his own historical contemporaneitythe main referential field of poetic signs, and portrays it either in close-upand emphasised, or in the background and concealed, merely outlined. Inboth cases the context is evoked by tropes, for example, by an allegoricaltype, mythologisation or de-realisation. Such are for example the imagesof the fiery disarray overflowing “the golden towers of Western Europe”in The Ecstasy of Death (Eksta<strong>za</strong> smrti), or mythological or folklore allusionsto the Flood combined with grotesque irony in Tragedy on the Ocean(Tragedija na Oceanu). 13197
KOSOVEL’s poeticsThe subject in the expressionist poetry is becoming plural, merging intoa community for which it feels ethically responsible, dialogically searchingfor a hidden God, or erasing the textual imprints of its personality. It identifieswith objects or concepts. The first person subject sometimes appearsonly on the margins, among a number of voices which inhabit the structureof utterances. The foreign voices in Kosovel’s poems (for example, inthe cycle The Karst Village [Kraška vas]) are quotations from undefinedspeech acts. 14Kosovel’s “workers’ poems” (for example the sonnet sequence The RedAtom [Rdeči atom]) have a similar narrative scheme (the critical destructionof the old society and a utopian construction of the new), and alsotransform an intimate revelation to the individual reader into an oratory addressto the collective. However, his “Proletcult” writing is sociologicallyand politically more concrete, clearly situated in an industrial environment.It approaches the poetics of the “new reality” (neue Sachlichkeit). The styleof the “workers’ poems” is rhetorical, but rather prosaic, simple, colouredwith political expressions and revolutionary slogans. The poems reveal theposition of a poet-intellectual identifying with the proletarian masses.The poet takes us brilliantly into the centre of his radical modernismwith his auto-thematic imagery: “The spirit collects impressions. / I searchfor moving images. …I am like an electric spark / jumping. …An activespirit collects images …Facts drive art away. ” 15 The lyric subject is decentred,it remains without a recognisable voice or a stable perspective, orthe zone of his speech – which can be “traditionally” sentimental, lyrical– is limited, fragmentarily placed in a mosaic of impersonal strings of images,quoted statements, nameless pieces of information, or vague fragmentsof conversation. The structure of utterances in Kosovel’s modernisttexts is therefore already dialogised, ambivalent, polyphonic, and aboveall, intertextual: it combines humanistic eagerness, political demands andsubjective lyricism, with irony, cynicism and grotesquery; it sums up andparaphrases the current cultural, political and scientific news from newspapers;it hints intermedially at avant-garde paintings (for example, by FranzMarc), and through allusions, relates to other avant-gardes or debates withthem (for example, with dadaism and futurism).The composition of the text belongs to Eco’s model of an “open work”:instead of a homogeneous motif and perspective, we have a montage offragments, autonomous images, which in counterpoint nevertheless evokeand develop a common semantic field; we encounter film cuts, “zoomingin” on details and boundless vistas, with a plural and limitless chronotopein which Kosovel’s entirely private spaces simultaneously intertwine withplanetary and cosmic spaces. The stylistic structure of the text is often hybrid.The style of the poem does not simply follow similar patterns fromthe past – the tradition of so-called poetic style; it is also open to contemporarydiscourses, including those which do not belong in the domain oftraditional literary types: this accounts for the philosophical, theological,and psychological terms, mathematical symbols, the vocabulary of moderntechnology, physics, natural sciences, political slogans, journalistic lan-198
MARKO JUVAN: Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernismguage and the mixture of elevated and prosaic registers in Kosovel’s Conspieces.Kosovel had already begun to omit the traditional form of individualisticaesthetic communication in his expressionist and Proletcult poems. By itsethical stance, the subject of the poem suggests that it inhabits the sameworld of crisis as the recipient. While the expressionist representation ofsocietality is mediated through poetic tropes, and therefore a homogeneouspoetic language, Kosovel’s radical modernism copes with the modernworld by presenting it intertextually or through “collecting images”, whichare brought into the “active spirit” by a changing empirical reality. In amodernist text the subject descends to the level where the aesthetic sphere,which was traditionally autonomous, openly interacts with the discoursesof science, politics, technology, philosophy and religion and also withworks, imaginary and languages of other arts. Radical modernism turninginto avant-gardism 16 therefore defines a major part of Kosovel’s Conspieces. However, such modernist structure in Kosovel often infiltrates thetexts with seemingly prevailing impressionist or expressionist poetics, forexample, through montage of composition, “zooming in” on certain detailsof the crumbled motif, the marginalisation of the subject in the structure ofa text’s utterances, the introduction of undetermined quotations of someoneelse’s speech or the disorientation of the lyrical perspective and deterritorialisationof the subject.The co-existence, intertwinement and hybridity of diverse poetics that wehave described make Kosovel utterly comparable to other modernists. In themid-1920s, Picasso was developing simultaneously and without hesitationthe different styles that he had successively devised, so that his cubist workmeets his more traditional representational painting (see Mallen 2004).Guillaume Apollinaire, one of the earliest and most influential modernistpoets (see Apollinaire 1992), 17 created fragmented, cubist, syntacticallydisintegrated urban poetry, associative surrealist fantasies and visual constellationsalongside poetry which, at least seemingly, held to traditional,although at times ironic and profanely erotic, expression and classical rulesof versification. He even combined them in a single text. However, thepluralism of modernism and hybridity of poetic speech were conceptualisedand perhaps most consistently, vitally actualised by Fernando Pessoa inhis schizo-poetics. Among his heteronyms, accompanied by mystifyingbiographies, he placed poetics reaching almost from the futuristicallybuoyant avant-garde to sublimated symbolism; yet their common groundis unmistakable – a melancholy turmoil, psychic dissociation, caught in theduplicated mirrors of the ultimate modernist self-reflection, but open to theelusiveness of being outside metaphysics (cf. Pessoa 1997).Kosovel built his poetic identity less deliberately, but with equally asmuch drama. He moved from one poetic discourse to another, but aboveall, intertwined them into hybrids. Thus he became one of the first to imprintSlovenian literature with a distinctive seal of modernity.Translated by Katarina Jerin199
KOSOVEL’s poeticsNOTES1Matevž Kos discussed these questions some years ago (1997: 152–65) in thechapter entitled “Kosovel’s Paradox.”2At first Kosovel was enthusiastic about Anton Podevšek’s futurism and he wrotea couple of poems in his style, but he soon began to criticise the first Slovenianavant-gardist (he accused him of not being able to attract followers and that he wasto bourgeois for such a task), not only in his correspondence, but very explicitlyalso in his poetry: in Poem of the Green Salvation (Pesem o zelenem odrešenju),written around 1924 in Podbevšek’s style and form, he mentions that he “grewtired of Podbevšek’s games” – this interesting palinode was published in Ocvirk1967: 41–42. Kosovel, therefore, was critical of Podbevšek’s avant-garde (Ocvirk1967: 32–44; Zadravec 1986: 408–9; Vrečko 1986: 79) – just as he was critical ofzenitism and dadaism – but nevertheless developed his own poetic identity andtypes of public performance in a dialogical relationship with it.3Nocturne (Nokturno), CW 1, 213; Rhymes (Rime), CW 2, 9, My Poem (Mojapesem), CW 1, 229.4In Dom in svet, an important journal influenced by Catholic aesthetic andintellectual modernism, in 1931 France Vodnik excluded Kosovel from “creatorsof our new poetic style” and pointed out his debt to Cankar, Župančič, Gradnik andMurn; and according to Božo Vodušek, Kosovel before his death was “ideologicallyand stylistically still an epigone; however, he did exhibit traces of revolt” (quotedfrom: M. Kos 1997: 157).5As to the real reasons for Ocvirk’s views on Kosovel’s Cons poetry, everythingis mainly speculation: he may have thought it was too fragmentary and chaotic forhis taste, although he looked quite favourably upon European modernism; maybehe thought that the publication of these texts in the circumstances when Sloveniawas governed by realistic aesthetic principles and rather academic tastes of theauthorities would damage Kosovel’s reputation; maybe his editorial work wasslowed down by his illness and his mistrust, which did not allow him to leave theediting of the legacy to anyone else.6The truth be told, this was not so much due to literary history as to postmodernretro-gardism (Neue slowenische Kunst) and its satellites. After Slovenia hadbecome independent, they managed through sophisticated theoretical marketing toestablish their attitude of “state artists” – so provocative in communism – as a real,influential position within the cultural image of governing parties. Even on the levelof aesthetical and political marketing, retro-gardism canonised the imaginary of theSlovenian historical avant-garde, including Kosovel.7Here is a succinct and typical formulation: “The poetry of Srečko Kosovel isa very heterogeneous phenomenon. It was created within a space of a few years[...], yet it explosively contains more or less the whole of spiritual and stylisticexperience of the 20th century poetry: from late impressionism and symbolismthrough expressionism and constructivism to the realist socio-programmatic poetry.All of it existing in a very narrow space, almost simultaneously and chaotically,without a classical progression of phases.” (Paternu 1989: 149–50.)8After Jean Weisgerber and Evald Koren, Janez Vrečko (1986:12) makes thesame point.9Somehow different, but still unclear, is the understanding of the concept ofSpätmoderne as suggested by Ernő Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó: when he argues for a method ofliterary history based in hermeneutics, deconstruction and reception, which takesinto account the experience of the post-modern, promotes the trichotomy “classicalmodernity – late modernity – post modernity” instead of the periodisation of200
MARKO JUVAN: Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernismbinomial modernity – post modernity; in his view, late modernity includes the artof the late 1920’s and 1930’s, which contrary to the avant-garde dissemination andde-centralisation of subject and style, leans towards a historically new formationof literature on the basis of a dialogic, inter-subjective, linguistically-semiotic andself-reflexive conception of art (Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó 1999).10Here Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó (1999) would use the term late modernity.11This corresponds to the analysis of the remnants of the romantic syndrome ofthe “beautiful soul” in Kosovel’s poetry, not only in his impressionist, symbolistand expressionist poetry, but also – in limited positions and dissonant conjunctions– in avant-garde and modernist poems (M. Kos 1997: 141–52).12Autumn (Jesen), CW 2, 160–1; Nihilomelancholy (Nihilomelanholija), CW 2,177; An Evening before Winter (Večer pred zimo), CW 1, 297.13The Ecstasy of Death, CW 1, 304–5; Tragedy on the Ocean, CW 1, 403–12.14The Karst Village, CW 1, 14–-6.15Why Get Upset? (Kaj se vznemirjate?), CW 2, 46–7.16The difference between Kosovel’s radical modernism and avant-gardism canalso be explained by the theory of speech acts. Kosovel’s avant-garde poetic textsrepresent speech acts adopted from a public discourse of avant-gardes, for example,from manifestoes. Kosovel’s avant-garde Cons poems therefore also act as appeals;they attempt to directly influence the readers’ ethical and political opinions, andtherefore bind them to a certain “optimal projection” which goes beyond the sheeraesthetic and artistic field. Modernist texts written by Kosovel do not contain suchappeals: they are open to reality, contemporaneity, the multilingualism of otherdiscourses, but they use this interlocution mainly for the self-reflection of thesubject and the poetic process.17He was an influence on and point of reference for the dadaists and surrealists.Works CitedGuillaume APOLLINAIRE, 1992: Sonce prere<strong>za</strong>n vrat. [Selected poems.] Selectedand translated by A. Berger. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba.Roland BARTHES, 1953: Le degré zéro de l’écriture. Paris: Seuil.Michael BELL, 1991: The Metaphisics of Modernism. In: The CambridgeCompanion to Modernism. Ed. M. Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ.press. 9–32.Sara BLAIR, 1991: Modernism and the Politics of Culture. In: The CambridgeCompanion to Modernism. Ed. M. Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ.press. 157–73.Malcolm BRADBURY – James MCFARLANE, eds. 1991: Modernism: A Guide toEuropean Literature 1890–1930. London: Penguin books.Darko DOLINAR – Marko JUVAN, eds. 2003: Kako pisati literarno zgodovinodanes? Razprave. [How to Write Literary History Today]. Ljubljana: <strong>ZRC</strong><strong>SAZU</strong>.Marijan DOVIĆ, 2004: Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. [The Systemicand Empirical Approaches to Literature.] Ljubljana: Založba <strong>ZRC</strong>. (Studialitteraria).Alfonz GSPAN, 1974: Neznani Srečko Kosovel: neobjavljeno gradivo iz pesnikove<strong>za</strong>puščine ter kritične pripombe h Kosovelovemu Zbranemu delu in Integralom.[The Unknown Srečko Kosovel.] Ljubljana: s. n.201
KOSOVEL’s poeticsGraham HOUGH: The Modernist Lyric. In: Modernism: A Guide to EuropeanLiterature 1890–1930. Eds. M. Bradbury, J. McFarlane. London: Penguinbooks. 312–20.Janko KOS, 1983: Moderna misel in slovenska <strong>književnost</strong>. [Modern Thought andSlovenian Literature.] Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba.Matevž KOS, 1997: Kako brati Kosovela? [How to Read Kosovel.] In: SrečkoKosovel, Izbrane pesmi [Selected Poems]. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.(Kondor 280.) 129–167.CW 1 = Srečko KOSOVEL, 1964: Zbrano delo 1. [Collected Works.] Secondedition. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS.CW 2 = Srečko KOSOVEL, 1974. Zbrano delo 2. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS.CW 3/1 = Srečko KOSOVEL, 1977. Zbrano delo 3/1. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana:DZS.Srečko KOSOVEL, 1967: Integrali ‘26. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva<strong>za</strong>ložba.Erwin KÖSTLER, 1999: Srečko Kosovel: Klassiker ohne Werk. In: S. Kosovel,Integrale. Translated by E. Köstler. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava.189–98.Lado KRALJ, 1986: Kosovelov konstruktivizem: kritika pojma. [Kosovel’sConstructivism.] Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 9/2. 29–44.Ernő KULCSÁR-SZABÓ, 1999: Subjekt und Sprachlichkeit. In: Epoche - Text- Modalität: Diskurs der Moderne in der ungarischen Literaturwissenschaft.Hgg. E. Kulcsár-S<strong>za</strong>bó, M. Szegedy-Maszák. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 51–74.Michael LEVENSON, ed. 1999: The Cambridge Companion to Modernism.Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press.– – –, 1991: Introduction. In: The Cambridge Companion to Modernism. Ed. M.Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press. 1–8.James LONGENBACH, 1991: Modern Poetry. In: The Cambridge Companion toModernism. Ed. M. Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press. 100–29.Enrique MALLEN, 2004: On-line Picasso Project. http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/ (access date 8th September 2004).Paul de MAN, 1997: Literarna zgodovina in literarna modernost. Slepota in uvid.[Blindness and Insight.] Translated by Jelka Kernev Štrajn. Ljubljana: LUDLiteratura. 143–64.Vanesa MATAJC, 2004: Literarnozgodovinski pojmovnik <strong>za</strong> literaturo moderne:revizija in nekaj predlogov. [Literary Historical Terms Applied to the Literatureof the ‘Moderna’.] Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 27/2. 61–81.Anton OCVIRK, 1946: Opombe. [Notes.] In: S. Kosovel, Zbrano delo 1. Firstedition. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: DZS. 403–42.– – –, 1964: Opombe. In: S. Kosovel, Zbrano delo 1. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana:DZS. 413–505.– – –, 1967: Srečko Kosovel in konstruktivizem. [S. Kosovel and Constructivism.]In: S. Kosovel, Integrali ‘26. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba.5–112.– – –, 1974: Opombe. In: S. Kosovel, Zbrano delo 2. Ed. A. Ocvirk. Ljubljana:DZS. 553–718.Boris PATERNU, 1989: Slovenski modernizem (Župančič – Kosovel – Kocbek).[Slovenian Modernism.] Obdobja in slogi v slovenski <strong>književnost</strong>i. Ljubljana:Mladinska knjiga. 145–62.Fernando PESSOA, 1997: Zadnja čarovnija: izbor. [Selected Poems.] Preface andtranslated by C. Bergles. Ljubljana: Nova revija.Lawrence RAINEY, 1991: The Cultural Economy of Modernism. In: The CambridgeCompanion to Modernism. Ed. M. Levenson. Cambridge: Cambridge univ.press. 33–69.202
MARKO JUVAN: Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of ModernismGerhard SCHAUMANN, 1997: Srečko Kosovels Europagedichte. Slavističnarevija 45/1–2. 59–66.Anton SLODNJAK, 1970: [Spremna beseda.] In: S. Kosovel, Lirika. Ljubljana:Mladinska knjiga. 99–117.Jola ŠKULJ, 1991: Paul de Man in pojem modernizem: koncepcija odprtosti, kije hkrati celovitost. [P. de Man and the Concept of Modernism.] Primerjalna<strong>književnost</strong> 14/2. 41–9.- - - , 1995: Modernizem in modernost. [Modernism and Modernity.] Primerjalna<strong>književnost</strong> 18/2. 17–30.Attila TAMÁS, 1991: Überlegungen über Gültigkeit umfassender Stilkategorienund systematisierungsbegriffe im 20. Jahrhundert. In: Avantgarde und Postmoderne:Prozesse struktureller und funktioneller Veränderungen. Hgg. E.Fischer-Lichte, K. Schwind. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verl. 129–38.Steven TÖTÖSY, 1999: Configurations of Postcoloniality and National Identity:Inbetween Peripherality and Narratives of Change. The Comparatist: Journalof the Southern Comparative Literature Association (Virginia CommonwealthUniversity) 23. 89–110.Vera TROHA, 1988: O Kosovelu in italijanskem futurizmu. [On Kosovel and theItalian Futurism.] Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> 11/2. 1–14.Boštjan M. TURK, 1996: Slogovna razmerja Kosovelove lirike v luči modernističnihposkusov iz <strong>za</strong>dnje ustvarjalne etape. [Stylistic Relations in Kosovel’s LyricPoetry.] Slavistična revija 44/4. 367–92.Janez VREČKO, 1986: Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda inzenitizem. [S. Kosovel, Slovenian Historical Avant-Garde and Zenitism.] Maribor:Obzorja.– – –, 1999: Labodovci, pilotovci, konstrukterji, konsisti in tankisti. Slavističnarevija 47/1. 49–67.Franc ZADRAVEC, 1986: Srečko Kosovel, 1904–1926. Koper: Lipa; Trst: ZTT.– – –, 1988: Srečko Kosovel (1904–1926) in ruski pesniški konstruktivizem –podobnosti in razločki. [S. Kosovel and the Russian Poetic Constructivism.]Slavistična revija 36/2. 195–215.Peter V. ZIMA, 2001: Das literarische Subjekt: Zwischen Spätmoderne undPostmoderne. Tübingen - Basel: Francke.– – –, 2003: Historische Perioden als Problematiken: Sozio-linguistische Situationen,Soziolekte und Diskurse. In: Kako pisati literarno zgodovino danes?. Eds. D.Dolinar, M. Juvan. 275–86.203
KOSOVEL’s poetics• ABSTRACTUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words:Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / literary reception / modernism /avant-garde / hibridityThe anomalies in the distribution and reception of Srečko Kosovel’s poetrytexts have engendered contradictory perceptions of the poet (as a belated heirof Slovenian Impressionism, an expressionist visionary, a radical avant-gardeauthor), and literary history had to face the problem of the periodisation ofKosovel’’s heterogeneous oeuvre. Kosovel’s poetics (impressionist and symbolist,expressionist, proletarian, avant-garde and modernist) do reveal perceptiblechanges in their mode of poetic communication, in which the author aims totranscend aesthetic autonomy and open up his text to various discourses, texts,messages, themes and images of the modern world. But Kosovel – throughouthis entire life – forged his own poetic identity precisely through the hybridcoexistence of diverse poetics; thus his identity refuses to be contained withinthe narrow bounds of the traditional historical narrative of literary evolutionand ruptures. This reveals not only a young man’s search for his own “authenticexpression”, but constitutes an important symptom of modernism – modernistheteroglossia, relativism, ambivalence, presentism and perspectivism. Stylisticand poetic hybrids are trademarks of modernist art; it can also emerge withinthe oeuvre of an individual author.204
The Canonisationof an ‘Absent’ AuthorMarijan DovićThe Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Sciences,Scientific Research Centre of the SASA, Ljubljana, SloveniaThe following reflection on Srečko Kosovel, written in the year of the centenaryof the poet’s birth, may appear, at least at the outset, to be a type ofexterior observation, the type that has no inherent connection to Kosovel’spoetry, and is therefore moving away from the discussions customary whenone speaks of such an important poet. It may even appear “sacrilegious”at first sight, but – I hope – it will transpire that the reflection only seemsto stand on the outside. It will address the problems of authorship andcanonisation that inadvertently strike the eye, in the case of Kosovel, andwould not lose their appeal with time, because they have given rise to questionsthat not only concern Kosovel, but also relations between the literaryauthor, literature, and meta-literary contexts in general. The theoreticalframework that may help in this analysis is partly related to contemporarycriticism of authorship as developed in the late 1960’s by Barthes, Foucaultand others, partly to the model of the literary system and its evolution asdeveloped by Schmidt and co-workers within the field of empirical science(Schmidt 1980, 1989), and to a great extent to modern analyses of theliterary canon and processes of canonisation (Guillory 1983, Juvan 1994,Dović 2003).It is well known that Srečko Kosovel (1904-1926) entered Slovenianliterary, cultural and political history as a poet of many faces: as a melancholypoet of the Karst, a sensitive poet with a distinctive premonitionof death, a visionary of social revolution, and also as a truly avant-gardepoet. Relatively soon after his death he became a true icon, perhaps themost important name in 20 th century Slovenian poetry, a national literaryclassic. His name virtually became a trademark; schools were named afterhim; he is well represented in anthologies of poetry and literary histories;and he has to this day received a thorough introduction and analysis in thehigh-school curriculum. Kosovel’s classic status has been due largely toliterary historians, who have published extensive studies and monographsabout him. In the year of the centenary of Kosovel’s birth even more timewas devoted to him – and after all, a poet’s worth within the canon can alsobe measured by the amount of attention accompanying his jubilees. Therewere numerous round tables, symposia, readings, celebrations, there arePrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue205
KOSOVEL’s poeticsnew scientific studies underway, popular essays, newspaper commentariesand special monographs on Kosovel and his work.Without a doubt Kosovel is a classic, almost a cult figure in Sloveniancultural history. And in what way is he available to us today? A potentialrecipient of Kosovel’s poetry faces tons of various editions, compilationsand selections of poetry: from rare pre-war editions to small, paperback,pocket and ornamented editions, etc. Those who wish to upgrade theirhigh-school experience of Kosovel are, however, primarily guided by thereference editions of his collected works (from the collection CollectedWorks of Slovenian Poets and Writers (Zbrana dela slovenskih pesnikovin pisateljev)) and, of course, by the legendary 1967 illustrated edition ofso-called Integrals (Integrali). With regard to this, one may ask some interestingquestions about the process of canonisation.Because similar questions come to mind with regard to other authors,the case of Janez Trdina may serve well to present the problem, whichbecomes much more complicated with Kosovel. There is a moment whenit becomes blatantly clear what a historical construct – almost a lie – thecanonised “Trdina” is, as available to us in Collected Works, and how mucheffort is required to make out the original context, which stubbornly eludesus. In the case of Trdina, the collection contains twelve volumes of thesame format, binding, typography etc., so we are dealing with a wholewhich is organized, homogeneous, and in itself gives the impression of akind of coherence, unity and inner harmony in the author’s body of work.In reality, however, the compilation of the twelve volumes contains completelydiverse textual material: from relatively jumbled manuscript notes,which obviously never reached the phase of final authorial editorship, toarranged, relatively polished and completed texts – like most of the Talesand Stories about Gorjanci (Bajke in povesti o Gorjancih). Even thoughthese facts are more or less adequately explained in the endnotes, one thingis evident: the pieces which the author undoubtedly intended to publish areintermingled with those about which it is anything but clear whether theauthor would wish to have published them in such a form; it is also obviousthat this mixture is hidden by the uniformity of the edition.In the case of Trdina, therefore, it is possible to claim that the editorof the first edition of the Selected Works, Etbin Kristan, (working for thepublisher Schwentner), and even more so the editor of the Collected Works,Janez Logar, became co-authors in a way: they co-modelled “Trdina” forsuccessive generations. And yet Trdina lived long (from 1830 to 1905) andwas actively in charge of the fate of his texts; if nothing else, he had controlover whether he would publish something during his lifetime or not. Thesituation with Kosovel is very different. As is well known, Kosovel diedat twenty-two of meningitis in Tomaj in 1926. In the few years of his activeliterary production he created an incredibly vast, and also remarkablydiverse range of poetry – there are over one thousand poems in the twelvefolders kept at the manuscript department of the National Library. He left,therefore, heaps of poetry, but very little information about it. His authorialwork ended at writing the text, and could not go on to include selection,206
marijan dović: The Canonisation of an ‘Absent’ Authorpolishing, the method of presentation to the public, the means of winningrecognition from his contemporaries in the literary system etc. – all thesepractices are always a part of the life of a literary producer. But for Kosovelto become a classic, someone had to do this work for him.Those who undertook this job were first faced with the dilemma of howto cope with the mass of material. As I was ploughing my way through thistruly impressive material, I discovered that there are extremely few guidelinesby which to classify it. It would be difficult to arrange the materialinto thematic fields with any justification; the same goes for the principle ofstylistic affinities. It is not possible to determine with any kind of certaintythe chronological order of the poems. The only opposition that might serveas a sign of a hierarchy would be the opposition signed/unsigned; however,this is not and cannot be reliable, because it really is insufficient evidencethat the signed poems are indeed better or more accomplished, or that thepoet would have preferred them published or would have wanted thempublished at all. Should we consider the quality of paper? One of the bestauthorities on Kosovel’s legacy, the editor Aleš Berger, believes that it ispossible to determine when the poems are fair copies, and that we couldconsider these poems to be more complete. But even this is an unreliableguideline. The opposition titled/untitled also leads nowhere. The odd mentionof his plans and the few poems the poet published during his lifetimealso do not provide significant help.It seems ironic, but it makes most sense to organize the manuscripts alphabetically,as they are stored in the Library. The moment anyone wishesto do something with this legacy, the only sensible alternative turns out tobe a construction, which can only be more or less informed, a constructionof a continuity, of a story. Another agent in the literary system has totake the place of the author: another author, editor or critic. By doing theirauthorial work, they each become a co-worker, a co-author to Kosovel:Ocvirk with Kosovel, Gspan with Kosovel, Brumen with Kosovel…Thesignificance of the fact that Kosovel as author is somehow absent, unavailable,is actually hard to assess. But it should by no means be neglected, orlost sight of, or any discussion about his poetry trying to go beyond thelevel of the analysis of individual poems – this includes the issues of thedevelopment of his style, issues of modernism, the avant-garde etc. – willlose its credibility.The literary canonThe problem of an author “absent” in the way we have described, somehowdetached from his own work and image – because he could not accomplishall the tasks expected of a literary producer – and yet with a namewritten in gold letters among the “Great Authors”, enables and forces us tothink through the basic features of the literary canon and the processes ofits formation. The literary canon undoubtedly holds one of the most importantroles in modern literary theory, and becomes crucial when literature207
KOSOVEL’s poeticsis not studied as literature alone – that is, as a sum of literary texts andtheir authors – but in its wider cultural and social context. In this context,the role of literature proves multi-faceted: the literary canon is not onlya selection of the most appreciated texts in a cultural community, but awider whole, containing also the names as authors’ “trademarks”, all of theimportant text interpretations, everyday sayings adapted from canonisedtexts, simplified formulas and quotes “for everyday use”, typical evaluations,and so on. Put simply, not only Kosovel’s texts, for example thebest “Integrals” or “Cons” pieces, are part of the literary canon, but alsothe well-known fact that the poet was in poor health and died young, thathe was “the poet of the Karst”, and even the history of readers’ receptionseems inseparable from the whole image. The literary canon is an importantelement in “the foundations” of a community, a textual basis on whicha society builds, and also maintains and recycles its historical memory; it isa kind of a mirror through which it establishes its identity, as Marko Juvanpoints out (1994). Against the texts that are a part of the literary canon, allpast, but also current cultural experiences of this community are measuredand legitimised.The canon, of course, is highly selective, and changes with time; particularlydue to the influx of new, fresh authors, canonical choices regarding thedistant past are more selective and schematic. To function well in its roleas a social cohesive, the canon needs effective mechanisms of reproduction,and the school system is the most important (Guillory 1983). Kosovelremains “Kosovel” mainly because he is produced and reproduced as suchby the school system – in this sense, it is the terminus of canonisation andthe ultimate point of validation. Before that, however, the canonised authorhas to pass countless screening processes. Let us look at this journey, asanalysed in detail by representatives of the Dutch empirical school, for exampleKees van Rees (1989). An individual with literary ambitions is firstscrutinised by editors, so the majority of writers are never published. Whensomeone does publish something, the critics will, with luck, pay a certainamount of attention to the text. If the author stirs enough interest amongthe critics and essayists, literary history will gradually seize him or her inits scientific claws and “clean up the author”, who is then, if need be, ideologicallyadapted and assimilated. Only after that may the author and thetext appear in school curricula, in textbooks, on mandatory reading lists, oramong high-school diploma examination materials. This is an “ideal” andsimplified picture of the process. The author can have some bearing on theprocesses, if he is alive, that is. It is easier to pass one’s text through theinitial filters of editors and publishers if one knows the techniques of lobbying,mingles with the right people (editors, critics) etc. The same goes forall the later stages – the image of “a good author” which reaches the stageof scientific examination is often rather distorted, burdened with para-textualprocesses, personal connections, and so on.During his lifetime, Kosovel published very little, but he was incrediblyprolific. He most definitely wanted to publish his poems, but he ranout of time to carry out his radical ideas for their proper distribution. The208
marijan dović: The Canonisation of an ‘Absent’ Authoronly ideas he put into practice were the high-school paper Fair Vida (LepaVida), and the literary and drama circle named after Ivan Cankar; for acouple of months he and his colleagues managed to take over the editorshipof the magazine Youth (Mladina). His own collection of poems, themagazine Constructor (Konstrukter), and a book collection, all remainedunrealised visions. The circumstances following Kosovel’s death were unusual:his contemporaries were left with an endless sea of manuscripts andalmost no hierarchy among them; with almost no plans or even outlinesfor the structure of the future collection of poems that Kosovel surely hadin mind.Constructing a classicAnd thus begins the story of Kosovel that has little to do with the deceased.His friends deserve all the credit for the fact that the manuscriptswere even tackled – this poetry could quite easily have remained a storyfrom a drawer, a non-existent story. The path which led to Kosovel beingconsidered among the classics is full of arbitrary decisions, more or lessjustified editorial judgements, and of digging through the manuscripts; butit is also the history of a specific, very contradictory reception. All thiswas already true of the first modest selection of poems in 1927, publisheda year after the poet’s death. The selection was made by Alfonz Gspan,who decided on mainly traditional poems. The same was true of the 1931selection by Anton Ocvirk, a scientist and founder of comparative literaturein Slovenia, and Kosovel’s younger contemporary. It is Ocvirk whowas the main actor in what we may call the “construction” of the canonicalKosovel. Ocvirk took over most of the manuscripts, and after the WorldWar II, Kosovel was one of the first authors confirmed for publicationwithin the ambitious collection of Collected Works of Slovenian Poets andWriters. In 1946 Ocvirk published the first volume of Kosovel’s CollectedWorks. He included many of the poems, but not the most radical ones, forthe reason – which he himself later explained – that they seemed to himfragmentary, unfinished; he felt they were still first drafts that Kosovel wasthrowing onto paper in a creative fever, and not real, aesthetically refinedpoems. However, Ocvirk did include some of the more radical Cons poetryin this first edition.But this is where the real story only just begins. There were many poemsleft in the legacy; most of all, those that are now considered the mostradical. For this reason a revision of the 1946 Collected Works was needed.The new version of volume one was issued in 1964, and the second volume,which included the so-called Integrals (Integrali), appeared in 1974.The most radical poems, which were given the editorial title of Integrals,were first published in 1967, and this prestigious edition was also edited byAnton Ocvirk, with design by Jože Brumen. The book shocked the public:where had these poems, “the best” of this Slovenian modernist and avantgardewriter been all this time? The finger was pointed at Ocvirk, who209
KOSOVEL’s poeticshad “held back” the manuscripts for all those years. This finger, however,somehow missed the point: because Kosovel was dead, and had left noplans, the selections of materials and even the titles of collections or seriesof poems – in short, all editorial interventions – were totally arbitrary inany case. This means that every editor could always pick according to hisown judgement, according to his own taste and aesthetic values. It couldbe said that the editors constructed, even “produced” their own Kosovel.And we can only now answer the opening question of how Kosovel couldbecome a poet of such diverse faces: his heterogeneous opus, soaking upinfluences from all kinds of literary trends and movements, permitted evendiametrically opposed constellations of aesthetic and ideological preferences.Therefore the history of Kosovel’s reception and canonisation must beread as a history of editorial appropriations and adaptations: before WorldWar II, Kosovel was a national poet who had established the imagery of theKarst as the “Slovenian imagery” – at a time when Tomaj was far insideItaly, and Kosovel was studying in another country. The post-war Kosovelcould adopt the state-approved face of a revolutionary socialist and sympathiserof the working class. With the flourishing of the neo-avant-garde artin Slovenia, it turned out that Kosovel was actually a modern, avant-gardepoet; parallels were established with futurists, constructivists, zenitists, etc.The avant-garde Kosovel – interest in him also grew due to the Frenchpoet Marc Alyn – is therefore a poet with a completely different face fromthat of the once lonely poet of the Karst. By the publication of the 1967Integrals, the Slovenian neo-avant-gardes had acquired legitimacy and becomepart of a certain historical continuity. However, the Integrals bookin itself is not a kind of innocent belated publication: it is once again anarbitrary choice, with an arbitrary, possibly even flawed title, accompaniedby graphic design which is far from neutral, because it associates Kosovelvery closely with the avant-garde context of the period when the book waspublished. In this sense the story of Integrals is related to a chronologicallyspecific interpretation which is ideologically motivated. From this aspect,the often-thematised question of the historical avant-garde in relation toKosovel can in a way be seen as an artificial question, created in hindsightby literary history to prove the synchronicity of the Slovenian andEuropean literary movements – and here might lie one of the reasons forthe particularities in Kosovel’s canonisation.ConclusionAs we somehow try to sum up what we consider important here, we mayfind support in the modern systemic and empirical approaches to literatureof S. J. Schmidt and others. In the scheme of systems theory the author as aliterary producer is inextricably linked with other related roles in the literarysystem: the roles of a mediator, receiver, critic. In this regard, Kosovel’scase seems particularly interesting, since as a literary producer Kosoveldid not actively engage in systemic relations; or rather, the impact of his210
marijan dović: The Canonisation of an ‘Absent’ Authorvery few engagements in his short life (few publications, editorial work,socialising) is negligible in comparison to what has been done for Kosovelby those who took it upon themselves to do what in normal circumstancesis undertaken or at least directed and supervised by the literary producer.It is possible, therefore, to claim that the canonisation of Kosovel, todayunanimously regarded not only as one of the best Slovenian poets, but alsothe most radical representative of the historical avant-garde, took a coursewhich completely “bypassed” the poet. As a canonical author, he was entirelyconstructed, because he had no influence over his own cultural fate.This does not mean, however, that other authors can play a decisiverole in their own canonisation: on the contrary – this happens mainly posthumously,and the authors’ ultimate images are tailored by an army of institutionswhich take part in relatively complex processes. Posthumously,Kosovel victoriously entered the literary arena, but the primary role wasplayed by actors in the literary system other than him. For this reason heseems all the more interesting a case study for various processes in theliterary system and the author’s role in them. On the other hand, we mayalso understand our findings regarding Kosovel in the context of a moderncriticism of what Barthes calls “the tyranny of the author”, or as a contributionto understanding the creation of the “author-function” (Foucault1979). Several studies have shown the historically contingent nature ofindividual authorship, which was able to develop in specific social circumstances,became legally codified by the regulation of copyright, andwas based in the romantic rhetoric of an inspired genius (Bennet 2005).“The tyranny of the author” still controls most social discourses related toliterature – publishers, magazines, critics, state institutions; and also animportant segment of traditional literary science benefits from the mythologiseddimension of the Author. However, it has been seriously questionedon the theoretical level. From this point of view it is no longer contestableto claim that Kosovel as a canonical author is not at all identical to thepoet as a historical person; he is the result of a an “authorial co-production”involving the mechanisms of the literary system, as well as scientificobservations of literature. We should neglect neither of them if we wishto understand better what is really going on in the process of the social“production” of an author.Translated by Katarina JerinBibliographyRoland Barthes: Smrt avtorja. In: Sodobna literarna teorija. Ljubljana: Krtina,1995, pp. 19–24.Andrew Bennet: The Author. London, New York: Routledge: 2005.Marijan Dović: Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba<strong>ZRC</strong>, 2004.211
KOSOVEL’s poeticsMarijan Dović: Sodobni pogledi na literarni kanon in njegovo družbeno vlogo.Dialogi 2003, no. 1–2, pp. 18–44.Michel Foucault: What Is an Author? In: Textual strategies. Perspectives inpost-structuralist criticism. (Ed. Josué V. Harari.) Ithaca, New York. CornellUniversity Press, 1979, pp. 141–60.Alfonz Gspan: Neznani Srečko Kosovel: neobjavljeno gradivo iz pesnikove<strong>za</strong>puščine ter kritične pripombe h Kosovelovemu Zbranemu delu in Integralom.Ljubljana: s. n., 1974. (Posebni odtis iz revije Prostor in čas no. 8–12, 1973.)John Guillory: Cultural Capital. The Problem of Literary Canon Formation.Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1983.Marko Juvan: Slovenski Parnasi in Eliziji: Literarni kanon in njegove uprizoritve.In: Individualni in generacijski ustvarjalni ritmi. (Obdobja 14). Ljubljana:Filozofska fakulteta, 1994.Marko Juvan: Srečko Kosovel med moderno, avantgardo in modernizmom. In:Literarni izzivi. Ljubljana – Maribor: <strong>SAZU</strong> – Pedagoška fakulteta, 2003, pp.106–22.Janko Kos: Slovenska literatura in zgodovinska avantgarda. Slavistična revija1986, no. 3, pp. 247–58.Matevž Kos: Kako brati Kosovela? In: Srečko Kosovel: Izbrane pesmi. Ljubljana:Mladinska knjiga, 1997.Srečko Kosovel: Integrali 1926. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba, 1967.Srečko Kosovel: Zbrano delo I/1, I, II, III/1, III/2. Ed. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana:DZS, 1946–1977.Srečko Kosovel: Ikarjev sen. Dokumenti, rokopisi, pričevanja. Ur. Aleš Berger,Ludwig Hartinger. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2004.Lado Kralj: Kosovelov konstruktivizem: kritika pojma. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>1986, no. 2, pp. 29–44.Anton Ocvirk: Srečko Kosovel in konstruktivizem. In: Srečko Kosovel: Integrali1926. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva <strong>za</strong>ložba, 1984.Kees van Rees: The Institutional Foundation of a Critic’s Connoisseurship. Poetics18. no. 1–2, 1989, pp. 179–98.Siegfried J. Schmidt: Grundriss der Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Band1&2. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1980.Siegfried J. Schmidt: Die Selbstorganisation des Sozialsystems Literatur im 18.Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989.Janez Vrečko: Labodovci, pilotovci, konstrukterji, konsisti in tankisti. Slavističnarevija 1999 no. 1, pp. 49–68.Vera Troha: O Kosovelu in italijanskem futurizmu. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>1988, no. 2, pp. 1–14.Franc Zadravec: Srečko Kosovel (1904–1926) in ruski pesniški konstruktivizem– podobnosti in razločki. Slavistična revija 1988, no. 1–4, pp. 195–216.212
• ABSTRACTboris a. novak: KOSOVEL: A GREAT POET BUT A POOR PROSODISTUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / literary reception / canoni<strong>za</strong>tion/ systems theoryThe author as a literary producer is inextricably linked with other related rolesin a literary system: those of mediator, receiver, editor, critic. In this regard,Kosovel’s case seems particularly interesting, since as a literary producerKosovel did not actively engage in systemic relations, or rather, the impact ofhis very few engagements in his short life (scarce publications, editorial work,socialising) is negligible in comparison to what was “done for” Kosovel bythose who have taken it upon themselves to do what in normal circumstancesis undertaken or at least directed and supervised by the literary producer him/herself. Thus it is possible to claim that the canonisation of Kosovel, todayunanimously regarded as not only one of the best Slovenian poets, but also themost radical representative of the historical avant-garde, had taken a coursewhich totally “bypassed” the poet. Posthumously, Kosovel victoriously enteredthe literary arena, but the primary role was played by other actors in the literarysystem, since he left no instructions as to what should be done with hisextensive and hierarchically disordered legacy. For this reason he seems all themore interesting a case study for various processes in the literary system and theauthor’s role in them. By the same token, most discussions of Kosovel and hiswork to date have overlooked this important context, approaching “Kosovel” assomething pre-given and at disposal, which can easily lead to simplifications.213
Kosovel and Nihilism:An Attemptat Constructive DeconstructionMatevž KosFaculty of Arts, Ljubljana, SloveniaToday, Srečko Kosovel holds a secure position in the canon of Slovenianliterature, yet despite being a classic author, he is the cause of diverse, alsoideologically motivated polemics and a corresponding struggle of interpretations– which use his vast poetic opus as a battleground. Slovenianshave problems with Kosovel even now, eighty years after the poet’s death.One of the latter such “symptoms” were the events surrounding the fifthanniversary of Slovenia’s independence, on 26 th June 1996, and the statecelebration in one of the main town squares of the Slovenian capital. It wasofficially called “Cons. 5 – The Triumphal Arch to the Fifth Anniversaryof the Independence of the Republic of Slovenia”. Cons. 5 is one of themost famous of Kosovel’s poetic “constructions”, and the authors of thecelebration borrowed its title for a more “symbolic” meaning, as they said,since it was the fifth anniversary of the construction of the new state. Cons.5 was not even directly used in the celebrations, however, for some importantpolitical men, including the minister of culture, the use (or misuse, intheir belief) of the poem’s title was reason enough to withdraw from thehonorary organizing committee. The title itself was not so much a problemas what was hidden behind it – whether spoken or not. And that, of course,was the poem itself. It goes like this (Collected Works II: 23):Dung is goldand gold is dung.Both = 00 = ∞A B
KOSOVEL’s poeticssound of a donkey’s bray, which is a mockingly loud conclusion to thepoem. Somewhat unusual, trivial at first sight, and yet: a donkey brayingin Kosovel is probably related to Nietzsche. The most likely source for the“donkey” is in Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Kosovel read it and,as it is documented, even recommended it to others. “I, A” (ee-aw) appearsin Nietzsche several times, and has a similar – ironicallysubversive, alsomocking – function as in Kosovel.It is almost necessary to know something about the circumstances inwhich the poem was written, as well as the wider context of Kosovel’spoetry, to understand Cons. 5. In the notes to Collected Works, the editorAnton Ocvirk points to the agricultural manual Dung Is Gold, whichKosovel came across during his stay in Tomaj and was the direct inspirationfor this poem. Equally important is Kosovel’s diary entry from 1925, whichis the draft for Cons. 5: “Gold fever./ People have gold fever. Capitalism/Dung is gold./ Gold is dung, because it is used as such/ Culture = a maid/ amaid to the capital.” (Collected Works III: 688)By bringing in these ‘meta-poetic’, con-textual circumstances, we makeone of the most basic intentions of Cons. 5 clearer. Above all it is an attackon capitalism; however – and this should not be overlooked - not by wayof transparent ideological agitation. Together with some other similarly orientedKosovel’s texts, Cons. 5 puts the sting into words only indirectly: thecomfortable, domesticated image of a ‘bourgeois’ world is taken apart, disharmonisedand thus presented as an extremely unstable, dynamic structure,which in itself – as it is – calls for radical change.The donkey braying at the end of Cons. 5 not only expresses a certainmocking and ironically parodic distance, but also declares a fundamentalvote of no confidence in the existing historical world.At this point, a couple of interesting questions arise. For example, whatis the instance, the position, from which Kosovel’s poetry declares a fundamentallack of confidence in a certain historical world – Slovenian societyand the Europe of the 1920’s? Why is poetry the medium of this lack of confidence?In the name of what ideals does this Kosovel poem protest? Andalso, what does the fact that the Kosovel’s poem protests, that it apparentlyhas certain ideals and so on, what does this mean for the modernist structureof Kosovel’s poetry? After all, we may also ask ourselves, what happensto these ideals if we look at them from the perspective of Nietzsche’sphilosophy, for example in the light of his demands for a revaluation of allvalues or in the light of the criticism of all so-called modern ideas?As it becomes clear from many of Kosovel’s essays, in parting withthe old world and setting up the new, he ascribes a special role to the poeticword, to literature, or rather to the culture as a whole. Kosovel doesnot see his poetry or art in general as an isolated pursuit, which wouldbe purely aesthetic and in this sense “autonomous”. Cons. 5 and similar– provisionally speaking – modernist texts may give the reader an aesthetically“autonomist”, “non-mimetic” impression – almost in the senseof (ultra)modernist poetics and its demands for “expelling sense” from poetry,which were popular in Slovenia at the time of the first publication of216
METVŽ KOS: Kosovel and Nihilism: An Attempt at Constructive DeconstructionIntegrals (Integrali), that is, in the late 1960-ies. The context of Cons. 5,which I have already mentioned, as well as Kosovel’s words about “thecultural movement” with the poetic word at its centre, however, speak ofsomething else.First, we have to look at Kosovel’s attitude towards the Slovenian poetictradition. Kosovel does not see it as something belonging in a museumthat, in the avant-garde manner (most bombastically in the “antipassatismo”of the futurists), needs to be surpassed and discarded. On the contrary:Kosovel sees himself as heir to and a continuer of the Slovenian literarytradition. This means that he bases his writing in the endeavours and aspirationsof his predecessors. And the most prominent, initiatory place inthis story is that of to France Prešeren, who is the centre of the Slovenianpoetic canon.Kosovel expressed his attitude towards the author of The Toast (Zdravljica)in several places. Let me quote the final passage from Kosovel’s paperPrešeren, written in February 1924. The incentive was the anniversary ofthe poet’s death.I would wish for one thing – that in this dark age, when we have forgottenwhy we are alive, we reach for his poetry and try to obtain from it the powerthat helps in suffering and in struggle, that gives a person faith in life, thatshows the aim to life. Because it is a special trait of deep and beautiful soulsto show their own lives, to show the only way that the soul needs to take:towards Beauty. And Prešeren is such a soul. (Collected Works III: 122)From this passage, written in Kosovel’s typically elevated style, we maydiscern some suggestive thoughts. Prešeren’s poetry is the target source oflife’s power, which helps in suffering and struggle. Is therefore the will topoetry that Kosovel demonstrates by referring to Prešeren as the ultimatepoetic authority, the will to more power, to a surplus that qualifies a personfor active entry into life’s arena? This is where the question of Kosovel’sattitude towards Nietzsche becomes relevant.Kosovel’s thoughts are sometimes Nietzschean. The impression is corroboratedby references to Nietzsche in Kosovel’s writings. In 1923 he apparentlyread Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, because he mentions itseveral times in this period, also in his correspondence (Collected WorksIII: 382, 481). Kosovel refers to Nietzsche as a kind of authority, if not aspiritual teacher. However, in this context Kosovel also writes of his endeavours;not only that, he writes, for example, of “sacrificing for Beautyand Truth”. In his text We Are Standing (Stojimo), also from 1923, he mentionsNietzsche and immediately goes on to talk about “the struggle forman and mankind”, about the Slavs, who will save “the tired European manwith their great will for life, with their juicy, barbarically joyous lust forlife” (Collected Works III: 42). The same year Kosovel wrote in a review:“If man wants to live…he must step into the surroundings. He is not a manof a rotten society, neither is he a man of the most ideal collectivity; he isman-god, Nietzsche’s Übermensch. With him the world stands and falls.”(Collected Works III: 236)217
KOSOVEL’s poeticsIn a diary entry from the period, Kosovel was even more direct: “When Ifeel most bitter in my heart, I read Nietzsche.” (Collected Works III: 703).However, we must say in advance that Kosovel indeed dialogises, attimes perhaps flirts with Nietzsche, yet he understands him very much inhis own way – far from the radical nature or consistency of the originalNietzschean thought. Like Ivan Cankar before him (See: Kos 2003: 147–180), Kosovel humanises will and power, and only in this explicitly humanisticcontext understands them as the means of human (individual andcollective) emancipation. The same goes for Kosovel’s frequent slogansabout humanity, new man, justice, new society, new ethos etc., which otherwiseoften resound with the programmatic principles of so-called messianicexpressionism.Within Kosovel’s horizon, all these ideas – explicitly “modern” or “decadent”according to Nietzsche – however, have no deeper conceptual connectionto Nietzsche’s perspective. Or more precisely, with perspectivismin Nietzsche, which means: to see all being in the light of the will to powerand the eternal return of the same, and therefore also “beyond good andevil”. Perspectivism according to Nietzsche is not about seeing life fromthe perspective of development in the sense of an eschatological progressiontowards a certain Goal, least of all in the light of any kind of ethicalpostulate. In short, Nietzsche proceeds from the will to power as a fundamental“structure” of nature, the “instinct” of being, as “the eternal returnof the same”. What keeps returning is the will to power as a self-willingpower (cf. among others, Nietzsche 1991; 577–8).For Kosovel, poetry and art in general are not the embodiment of ebullientpower and the will to life in the Nietzschean sense; power is limitedin advance. In other words: power, which is limited, and on which Kosovelwagers, is not power which would will itself; it is not power which would bethe ultimate principle of life. Kosovel limits himself to the amount of powernecessary to somehow bear suffering and then give it meaning throughengagement within the movement for the reali<strong>za</strong>tion of a certain humanitarianidea. This is why this power cannot be expansionist, turned outward.On the contrary, the limits of this world, to use a phrase that Kosovel probablydoes not use by coincidence, are the limits of the beautiful soul. Andthe world in which this beautiful soul lives and feels at home is poetry. Theaim of the poetic beautiful soul is “to walk towards Beauty”.It is necessary to add that the foundations of Kosovel’s “poetics” as theyappear in his discursive texts are heterogeneous, often even contradictory.Kosovel’s watchword for the truth of poetry is Beauty; however, followingCankar’s example, he does not understand it in the sense of harmony as oneof the categories of “classical” aesthetics, nor in the sense of art-for-art’ssakeor aestheticism. A typical example is Kosovel’s 1925 draft of the essayModern European Life and Art which he was planning at the time. Amongother things, he says that art… is no longer, as seen by some professorial aesthetes, an aesthetic problem,but rather an aesthetic, ethical, social, religious, revolutionary problem,that is, the problem of life.… Because only the artist who has stepped from218
METVŽ KOS: Kosovel and Nihilism: An Attempt at Constructive Deconstructionthe swamp of modern society and entered a new society that he himself felt,only this artist is the new priest of the truth, righteousness, humanity, andkindness. (Collected Works III: 650)The foundation of this renovation, claims Kosovel as he goes on, isan”ethical revolution”: “We want action. And you cannot move on to actionwithout an ethical revolution.” (Collected Works III: 651)In the last part of Kosovel’s life this persuasion was given more concrete,social and political content. He explained his views most clearlyin his lecture Art and the Proletarian (Umetnost in proletarec), which hegave towards the end of February 1926, three months before he died, inZagorje. Kosovel discussed the modern artist and the necessity that he entersthe movement which “fights within the class struggle for a classlesssociety”. The subject of the movement is the proletariat, and in Kosovel’smind, the emancipation of the proletariat, in Marx’s words, is a prerequisitefor the emancipation of the whole of mankind. 1 The realisation of Justicewill bring “a new, proletarian, humanitarian culture”. Therefore, surmisesKosovel, “proletarian culture is a necessity, without which the proletariatcannot fulfil its task” (Collected Works III/3: 29).Here, a question, which could be called “the question of poetry”, arisesin all its clarity. Namely: on these foundations, how does one adjust the poeticword so that it fits the truth of the new age? Because, in spite of all hisconfrontational activism, the poetic word of Kosovel is above all the wordof yearning. And yearning in itself is aimless and open, it concerns the heart,the soul, and an unspecified sorrow, if I use the poet’s words, which we encounterin all the “developmental stages” and “genres” of his writing.Is the allure of the sirens of the new society as an eschatological project– in its realisation, Kosovel bestows an initiatory role on literature – suchthat it could put into question all of Kosovel’s previous poetic endeavours?Because, constitutive to him are searching, “ontological” uncertainty,inherent discrepancy, wavering between solipsism and activism and thecorresponding state of crisis; but most of all, the common denominator inKosovel’s poetry remains the elementary lyricism of the “beautiful soul”.Despite the techno-poetic, thematic and other metamorphoses of Kosovel’spoetry,– this remains his defining foundation (cf. Kos 1997).With regard to these dilemmas I must once again point to certain formulationsfrom Kosovel’s correspondence. These are sentences that Kosovelwrote in his letter to Fanica Obidova in the summer of 1925: the poet speaksof being in the midst of a great revolt and of the creative nervousness that1And also the first prerequisite for the emancipation of smaller – according toMarx (and Hegel) “non-historical” – nations. For Kosovel’s vision of the “proletarianrevolution” is not nonnational in the sense of the “world revolution” and the related“dying off of nations”. Kosovel’s diary entry from 1924 is meaningful enough:“Through the socialism of revolution to the freedom of nations.” (Collected Works:624) Similarly: “Nation is above state, because nation is organic, natural and legitimate,whereas the state is a mechanical political and economic factor.” (CollectedWorks III: 659)219
KOSOVEL’s poeticsis part of this revolt; at the same time, this nervousness is already a wider,almost metaphysical notion: “A nervous man is a medium for cosmic tragedies.”Particularly interesting for us is the sentence in which Kosovel speaksof the fact that man must “cross the bridge of nihilism to the positive side”(Collected Works III: 397–8).This sentence is actually a slightly different version of a thought wefind in one of Kosovel’s diary entries from that time: “We will have to gothrough the nothingness of negativism to get to the true constructive path.“(Collected Works III: 700)There are other, similar formulations scattered through Kosovel’s writing.In another letter to Fanica Obidova he wrote, for example: “From absolutenegation, nihilism, I have gradually moved, with my eyes closed, tothe positive side.” (Collected Works III/2: 400)In this letter Kosovel explains his current poetic dilemmas and also envisageswhere his poetry is going. Kosovel’s self-labelling and self-explanationsof all kinds should make us aware of several things. First of all,Kosovel’s words about “the true constructive path” and “the positive side”do not simply denote a kind of aesthetic “quasi-reality” or literary quirk;Kosovel’s thought here is explicitly socially oriented.This, in turn, means that he puts his own poetry (or literature/art in general)directly at the service of ideology and politics. Kosovel is quite clearon this in the letter cited earlier to Fanica Obidova, dated 27 th July, 1925:Although we must know politics, my work is in literature. Today I understandmy work and my domain perfectly: I have to do in literature what ouryoungest do in politics; that is: portray the age in which one world is decayingand another is arising. Why and how, depends on the individual.You see, this is our task. Literature must awaken knowledge in people! Itmust intensify the power of life. (Collected Works III: 401)Literature, therefore, should intensify the life force in people. Kosovel’simperative brings us again to a comparison between Kosovel and Nietzsche.As far as Nietzsche goes, we have been establishing that his term “willto power” can only be used provisionally in Kosovel, in the sense of aconstructive will to power. It is the kind of will to power that will serveman as a “personified ethos”, to use Kosovel’s phrase. He gives the mostvivid explanation of this “personified ethos” in his lecture Crisis (Kri<strong>za</strong>) inNovember 1925 in Ljubljana. The first sentence of this lecture is the sameas the title and the first line of Kosovel’s poem Europe is Dying (Evropaumira). Even a casual glance reveals that the poem is made up of two halvesor two levels. On one level we witness an explicit, almost transparent socialcriticism. These are the lines which state that Europe, such as it is, is dying,or that the League of Nations is a lie. The other side of this social criticism,or almost ecstasy, as much as is possible by the poetic subjectivity turnedoutwards, is an emphatically intimate reflection.This duality of social criticism and emphatic individuality, or social engagementand lonely melancholy are constitutive elements of the poeticattitude we could in general call “Kosovel’s paradox”.220
METVŽ KOS: Kosovel and Nihilism: An Attempt at Constructive DeconstructionKosovel’s lecture Crisis is one of his more famous publicity texts. Thislecture offers similar findings as the poem Rhymes: that clichés should beput in museums, and that “everything has lost its value”. The loss of valuehappened in the name and in the light of the future. This future appears ona horizon that begins with words about “the death of Europe”. The death ofEurope is the condition for the birth of the new world and new man. Andthis is where art acquires special significance. Moreover, in his Crisis lecture,Kosovel even wrote in the first person plural that “we” come “in thesign of art”. At the same time, he understands this art in a distinctly humanistsense, in the sense of getting closer to man: “the humanitarianism of artconsists in getting closer to man” (Collected Works III: 20).This is immediately followed by the (penultimate) sentence, which is aparaphrase of a Nietzsches’s well-known Nietzsche’s words or rather slogans;however, Nietzsche’s thought is already critically rejected. Kosovelsays: “Not beyond good and evil, just and unjust, not with the superhumanlie; we come as people through good and evil, just and unjust.” (CollectedWorks III: 20)Kosovel’s engagement on this level is clear: he demands engagementin the name of man and mankind, and this engagement at the same timeis in the name of good versus evil, justice versus injustice. If Nietzscheabolishes the moral distinction between good and evil and morals in general(morality is immorality), if socialism to him is just a “modern idea”, amanifestation of social decadence (cf. particularly Nietzsche 1991: 78–88),if the so-called good man to him is just another name for modern man, fora Christian or a nihilist (Nietzsche 1989: 197), than Kosovel demands preciselythe opposite: he calls for an emphasised ethical and moral attitude,because man – man as an ethical subject – must decide again and again betweengood and evil, just or unjust. After all, this is where Kosovel’s wordsof man as “personified ethos”originate.In one of Kosovel’s diary entries from 1925 (On Suicide) there isa formulationabout nihilism. It is about the fact that nihilism comes directlyfrom modern society: “nihilism /is/ the only philosophy which organicallyoriginates from modern discord, the split between society and man; modernculture cannot produce a better ‘philosophy’” (Collected Works III: 648)The alternative to this nihilism is not the will to power as the active sourceof life in Nietzsche’s sense; Kosovel’s point takes a different turn: he speaksof ethical revolution, which is at the same time spiritual revolution; and notin the name of the Übermensch as the figure of the will to power, but inthe name of the new humanity and its moral attributes, which are, to useKosovel’s language, primarily love, honesty and truth.It is in this context that we must understand the poet’s words about thegreat revolt he is in; about the fact that we must “cross the bridge of nihilismto the positive side”. After all, as early as 1924, Kosovel wrote thisisolated, but meaningful, critically distanced thought in his notebook: “Thedreams of nihilism: to kill all, to tear it all apart, to die, the delight, to laywaste, to lay waste.” (Collected Works III: 617)* * *221
KOSOVEL’s poeticsAs far as Kosovel’s attitude to Nietzsche goes – and to the issues of “Europeannihilism” – it manifestly confirms the complexity of the circumstancesof Kosovel’s poetry and life. And these are circumstances that probablydictated the poet’s incorrect reading of Nietzsche, as well as his attemptsto not only recover from nihilism, but also overcome it. These attemptsare, according to the logic of this, beyond correct or incorrect understanding– in Kosovel they are in close contact with his vivid, straightforwardpersonality, as well as with “the negative total” of the post-war Slovenianworld of the 1920’s.Translated by Katarina JerinBibliographyKOSOVEL, Srečko (1964): Zbrano delo I, ed. A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Državna<strong>za</strong>ložba Slovenije.– – – (1974): Zbrano delo II, ed. A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Državna <strong>za</strong>ložba Slovenije.– – – (1977): Zbrano delo III, ed. A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Državna <strong>za</strong>ložbaSlovenije.– – – (1967): Integrali’26. Ljubljana–Trst [Collection Bela kri<strong>za</strong>ntema]: Cankarjeva<strong>za</strong>ložba in Založništvo tržaškega tiska.KOS, Matevž (2003): Poskusi z Nietzschejem: Nietzsche in ničejanstvo v slovenskiliteraturi. Ljubljana [Razprave in eseji; 51]: Slovenska matica.– – – (1997): »Kako brati Kosovela?« In: S. Kosovel: Izbrane pesmi. Ljubljana[Knjižnica Kondor; 280]: Založba Mladinska knjiga, pp. 129–67.KRALJ, Lado (1986): Ekspresionizem. Ljubljana [Literarni leksikon; 30]: Državna<strong>za</strong>ložba Slovenije.– – – (1986): “Kosovelov konstruktivizem: kritika pojma“. Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong>IX/2, pp. 29–44.NIETZSCHE, Friedrich (1988): Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15Einzelbänden. [KSA]. Ur. G. Colli in M. Montinari. München/Berlin/NewYork: dtv/de Gruyter.– – – (1984): Tako je govoril Zaratustra. Knjiga <strong>za</strong> vse in <strong>za</strong> nikogar. Transl. JankoModer, Ljubljana [2 nd edition], [Filozofska knjižnica; 15]: Slovenska matica.– – – (1988): Ecce homo. Transl. Janko Moder, Ljubljana [Filozofska knjižnica;36]: Slovenska matica.– – – (1991): Volja do moči. Poskus prevrednotenja vseh vrednot: iz <strong>za</strong>puščine1884/88. Transl. Janko Moder. Ljubljana [Filozofska knjižnica; 34]: Slovenskamatica.VREČKO, Janez (1986): Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda inzenitizem. Maribor [Znamenja; 89]: Založba Obzorja.222
METVŽ KOS: Kosovel and Nihilism: An Attempt at Constructive Deconstruction• ABSTRACTUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.:1 Nietzsche F.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / philosophical influences /Nietzsche, Friedrich / nihilismThe paper proceeds with the question of Kosovel’s attitude towards nihilism.More precisely, what Kosovel understood under this term, which he was acquaintedwith and himself used, and in what sense did he try to transcend thesubject of nihilism. In this context, the discussion primarily turns on Kosovel’sattitude towards Nietzsche, as far as it can be reconstructed with the help ofKosovel’s own formulations in his letters and diary entries. On the bases ofthese, it is possible to advance the thesis that the alternative to nihilism forKosovel was not “will to power” as the active life principle in Nietzsche’ssense. Kosovel’s aspirations followed a different path. Namely, the poet spokeof the ethical revolution, which was simultaneously a spiritual revolution, butnot in the name of superman as an exposed, isolated figure of the will to power,but in the name of new man, new humanity and its moral attributes.If Nietzsche abolishes the moral differentiation between good and bad andmorality as such (morality is immoral), Kosovel’s endeavours go in the oppositedirection: he aspires to a decidedly ethical and moral stance, since man– man as an ethical subject – needs constantly to choose between good andbad, justice and injustice. It is in this light that Kosovel’s formulation of man as“ethos incarnate” should be understood.Nietzsche is not a key figure to open doors into Kosovel’s poetic world, andyet in Kosovel’s perception of Nietzsche there is some kind of significant ambivalence.This ambivalence was somehowbolstered by what could be referredto as an unintentional misreading of Nietzsche.223
Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems:an Uneasy Balance betweenIndividuum and SocietyAlenka JovanovskiFaculty of Arts, Ljubljana, SloveniaLet me approach the subject of Kosovel’s “cons” poems from the perspectiveof the Aesthetics of Reception by considering a thesis which H. R. Jaußdevelops on the basis of Aristotel’s catharsis, St Augustine’s criticism ofself-enjoyment in his curiositas and Gorgias’ doctrine on the persuasive potentialof affects in speech-making (Jauß 1982: 92). The cathartic pleasureand the very essence of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experienceare thus defined as “the dialectical interplay of self-enjoyment through theenjoyment of what is other and makes the recipient an active participant inthe constitution of the imaginary, something which is denied him as long asaesthetic distance is understood according to traditional theory as one-directional,as a purely contemplative and disinterested relationship to an objectat a certain remove” (Jauß 1982: 92). The dialectical interplay has twopoles: self-enjoyment and the enjoyment of “what is other”. The relationshipbetween them thus ideally encompasses both a turning in on oneselfand out towards the other. Jauß, however, acknowledges the potential ofreduction of either of the two poles whenever “the state of suspension characteristicof the attitude of aesthetic pleasure becomes one-sided and eithera distance-less enjoyment of the object or sentimental self-enjoyment, thatcathartic experience thus runs risk of being used for ideological purposesor of becoming prefabricated consumption, thereby losing its genuinelycommunicative efficacy” (Jauß 1982: 92–93).I would like to add two things: first, the common denominator of thetwo poles of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experience alwaysderives some kind of reali<strong>za</strong>tion through which one gains an insight as bothan individual and a social being. However, one does not merely understandoneself to a point of closure, but rather finds oneself continually in theprocess of self-understanding. This triggers a set of reactions: affirmation,negation, critical appreciation, to name the more obvious ones.Second: the two poles of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experienceshould not be thought of as fixtures, synchronic or diachronic. In fact,throughout history they have undergone a number of variations. To give anexample: in the Middle Ages, the pole of ‘the other’ was structured as thedivine Thou, or rather, his representative, Jesus Christ, whereas in modernPrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue225
KOSOVEL’s poeticstimes the other can be perceived as either the individual’s personal unconsciouscontent or the social conventions not yet made conscious. Since theproblem of Kosovel’s ‘cons’ poems interests me from the perspective of thecontemporary model of communicative efficacy, I will not go further intohistorical parallels. The somewhat schematic and inevitably simplified descriptionof the medieval model of communicative efficacy simply servesto illustrate the historical background or context, against which I will mapout the problem of the communicative quality of Kosovel’s ‘cons’ poems.According to Jauß, the modern model of the communicative efficacy ofaesthetic experience can first be seen in terms of the subject’s regardingtheir own subjectivity and the unconscious social norms. Only secondlydoes the recipient react (or not react) to social norms and their own intimatecontent. The risk of aesthetic experience being invaded by ideologyis highest in the case of utterly uncritical affirmative responses to societyor in a total lack of response (Jauß 1982: 92–93) This, of course, endangersthe core achievement of modern aesthetics: the autonomy of art. Movingon from here to Adorno’s thesis about the autonomy of art as an aestheticand social fact, it becomes clear that this autonomy collapses when the balancedrelationship between art/aesthetics and society becomes unbalanced(Adorno 2002: 5).Gadamer’s thesis of the subjectification of aesthetics after Kant andSchiller turns on the notion that an abstract aesthetic consciousness iscaused by the separation of art from life. Also, Jauß’s understanding of theessence of the communicative efficacy can be fine tuned to the conclusionthat art is safe from ideological attacks only when both poles of the communicativeefficacy of aesthetic experience are preserved in their entirety.In other words, my self-understanding is complete only when the self (asan individual and a member of society) is in a dynamic, ever open dialoguewith the other (as an individual and as society). Therefore, if one of theelements is missing, this not only affects the dialogue between the twopoles of an aesthetic experience, but it also obstructs and hinders my veryself-understanding. Can my self-understanding gain a true dimension if itneglects either the self or the other?According to Adorno, the warrant of art’s autonomy is precisely the balancebetween the individual and society. In modern times, this relation hasnot always been in perfect equilibrium; a historical overview would probablygive a picture of a constant imbalance between the individual andsociety which, in turn, also frustrates the need for a continuous and playfuloscillation between the self and the other. Here I can offer only a cursoryglance at the matter.Kant’s scheme of aesthetic experience assumes a number of factorswhich support the recipient’s orientation towards society: one such factor,for instance, is the imperative for universal liking/pleasing, 1 for the subjectiveuniversality of a pure aesthetic judgement, of its general communicability,all of which can be linked to the maxim that “beauty is merely asymbol of what is moral” (KU § 59.259). On the other hand, there is theso-called sensus communis 2 that comes into play here, which connects the226
alenka jovanovski: Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems …aesthetically affected subject with society. Moreover, according to somecontemporary interpretations which approach Kant’s third Critique in thelight of the Critique of Practical Reason, aesthetics, particularly with theprinciple of disinterested pleasure, acts as key support to moral philosophyas a tendency towards surpassing one’s desires and interests (for example,Marquard 1995: 37–69).From Kant onwards, what was a tentative balance between the individualand society began to lean further and further toward the subject’s confrontationwith the contents of his/her own inner world. In other words, theappreciation of the ‘self’ in relation to the ‘other’ was considerably reducedby the abstract aesthetic consciousness. The danger of this for aesthetic experiencewas that it could ultimately lead to sentimental self-indulgence.A crucial shift in this direction is already visible in Schiller’s more radicalextrapolation of Kant’s scheme of aesthetic experience. In the 19th century,Schiller’s shift postulated such aesthetic experience whereby the readingact enabled the recipient to constitute his/her own subjectivity – mainlywith the aim of reinforcing it, so as to withhold the pressure of day-to-dayreality even after coming back to the everyday world.Marquard derives his thesis of aesthetics as non-aesthetics * preciselythrough late Schiller to describe the effects of those works of art whichmake the recipient turn increasingly in on him/herself to contemplate his/her own personal contents (Marquard 1995). Effectively art/aesthetics beganto have the effect of a sedative and became a means of alleviating thepain and shock (Marquard 1995: 21–35) that the romantic – and even moreso the post-romantic – subject would experience against the backdrop of thesocio-historical horizon. Such isolation of art, such severing of the socialumbilicus from which art grows, however, can lead to its degeneration, intoescapism, whereby art loses its vitality. This is not to say that art/aestheticsas non-aesthetics is (simply) non-art, or beauty temporarily put to sleep. Onthe contrary, in its radical form, it anaesthetises itself, sleeps the sleep ofdeath, thereby passively, silently, consenting to – and thus upholding –unjustsocial norms. This, of course, means that its autonomy is threatened, oreven that it exists merely as facade.If I apply Marquard’s concept of non-aesthetics to the field of the communicativeefficacy of aesthetic experience, then I can say that the end ofthe 19th century crisis in art went hand in hand with the crisis of the communicativeefficacy of aesthetic experience. Let me demonstrate by wayof the French symbolists. Mallarmé’s wish to utter in language, down tothe last nuance, also that which is unutterable, served as a way out of thecrisis in art; that is, it further separated art from life (society), pushing itdeeper into a crisis of communication. Those lesser creative moments of finde siècle – lesser in their powers of artistic persuasion – were not ultimatelyconcerned with penetrating the innermost depths, but seemed content withpresenting Weltschmerz, melancholy and depression as the quintessence of*The Latin term Maquard uses, Anasthetica, carries the double meaning ofaesthetics as non-aesthetics and also aesthetics as that which anaesthetisizes(transl.).227
KOSOVEL’s poeticssubjectivity – in other words, those qualities that characterise the unifiedbeautiful soul against the ugly fragmented world.It is precisely to this state of things that the various European literaryavant-garde movements reacted, with the aim of adjusting the degeneratemodel of communicative efficacy by re-introducing the maxim of theinterconnectedness of art and life. The avant-garde renewal of the communicativeefficacy of aesthetic experience operated on at least two levels,and was in itself highly ambivalent. On the one hand, it was concerned witha direct attack on abstract aesthetic consciousness. The scope of slogansabout burning down museums and the rejection of canonised art and literarytradition 3 almost never went beyond the mere subversion of the 19thcentury “traditional” model of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experience.The avant-garde artists strove to shatter both the Poet and hisivory tower, in which the reader, in all his or her pathetic aloofness, contemplatesthe Poet’s feelings wrapped in a decorous veil of melancholy.This tendency is most transparent in Italian futurism, and Kosovel saw italso in Micić’s zenitism.The avant-garde renewal of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experiencewas equally concerned with opening the recipient to society at thecost of neglecting the subject’s personal self-reflection. W. Benjamin hasdrawn the main distinction between the Italian and the Soviet avant-garde. 4The Italian avant-garde artists, even as they were announcing, with greatvehemence, the necessity of a war that would destroy the terminally sickwestern world, their concern never went beyond the aesthetics of society/regime – into enlarging the aesthetic sphere so as to encompass life fully,making it aesthetic. This would then be the source from which art coulddraw its vital sap. In contrast to the Italian avant-garde artists, the Russianavant-garde was not concerned with the aesthetisation of society, but withmaking society bear crucially on art – infusing art with society/regime. Inother words, they strove to broaden the sphere of reality into the sphere ofart. The aesthetic renewal, that is the subversion of the traditional schemeof the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experience, in this case neededto join hands with a revitalisation of content – with a social revolution.All the negative and positive sides of such strivings showed themselvesfairly early on in the Soviet regime. Thus we can conclude that the radicaldose of avant-garde medicine administered to the autonomy of art in factendangered autonomy just as much, if not more so, than was the case withart based on the degenerate Kant-Schiller model.Both the models of connecting art and life we have looked at will needto be considered in the light of Iser’s understanding of the fictive, the fictiveas the mediator between the field of the real and the field of the imaginary.(Iser 1978 and 1993). Italian and Russian avant-garde artists dealt with anddeveloped the connection between art and life in different ways. The Italianavant-garde sought for the field of imaginary to penetrate the real via thefield of the fictive, and – through the process of aesthetisation – structureit according to its own principles. The Russian avant-garde, on the otherhand, strove for the field of the real to break into the imaginary via the fic-228
alenka jovanovski: Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems …tive sphere and subordinate it to its own principles. Clearly, the fictive wasdeprived of its autonomous status in both instances, and poetry therebyweakened in its force of artistic persuasion.We are now ready to consider how the second wave of the Slovenianavant-garde reacted to the crisis of autonomous art. Kosovel, who wasthe leading proponent of this wave (Vrečko 1986: 81), perceived the generalcrisis of art with profound insight and also saw the specifics of theSlovenian situation. In his essays Crisis, Art and the Proletarian, Crisisin Humanity, the Breakdown of Society and Collapse of Art, Kosovel perceivedthe gulf between art and life/man (Collected Works (CW) 3/1: 12–21) as being at the heart of a general European crisis. It could be overcomeonly if (Slovenian) art was to draw from everyday life, rather than runaway from it into art for art’s sake. 5 According to Kosovel, the source ofconnection between art and life lies in the artist’s understanding (CW 3/1:41) 6 of him/herself and the world around: only understanding can bringthis somewhat abstract task of connecting life and art to fulfilment, andextending it to encompass the wider connections between art, life, humanity,and truth. In other words, art, according to Kosovel, is not merely an“aesthetic question”, it is “a question that concerns life itself” (CW 3/1,Journal VII/9: 650).Kosovel was also aware of the crisis of the communicative efficacy ofaesthetic experience. 7 As already mentioned, the Italian futurists strove forrather facile, even if inventive, connections between art and life; their artadmittedly attacked the traditionally passive role of the reader, but no morethan that. Unlike them, Kosovel saw the way out of the crisis of communicativeefficacy and the crisis of art in an ethical, spiritual revolution, arevolution on the level of content, not form, 8 one that would connect artwith life at a deep level.Having established the theoretical framework which will guide myinterpretation of Kosovel’s ‘cons’ poems, I now wish to posit two mainquestions: firstly, do the ‘cons’ poems manage to hold in balance the twopoles of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experience? Secondly, didKosovel in these poems overcome what was widely acknowledged as “therefusal of communicative identification”, typical of the contemporary experienceof art (Jauß 1982: 94)?I will approach these two questions by looking first at a structural elementthat features frequently in Kosovel’s ‘cons’ poems, and which I willrefer to as ironisation. Ironisation is one mode of poetic expression withwhich Kosovel tries to put a hold on the degenerate form of recipient’sconfrontation with him/herself and generate a critical evaluation of socialnorms in the reader. In fact, ironisation is a minus function. Such functions,according to Iser, typically characterise modernist texts. Namely, atext structured by means of minus functions does not fulfil the expectationsreaders cultivate through reading nonsmodern texts: it offers no key to theproduction of textual meaning. As such, minus functions are the reasonmodernist texts, instead of offering the reader a key to reading practice andthe production of textual meaning, offer a blank – that which remains once229
KOSOVEL’s poeticsthe reader’s expectations are abandoned. Blanks in modernist texts not onlystimulate a textual transfer into the reader’s consciousness, but also enhancethe reader’s interpretative activity. In other words, the reader is constantlysearching for a key to interpretation. But since each such interpretative actreveals itself to be deficient the more one reads into the text, the reader ofthe more radical modernist texts can only ever reach a provisional interpretation,which is then displaced by the next interpretative key. 9In Kosovel, ironisation as the crucial type of minus function is basedon the concept of the beautiful soul. What this means is that its function isnot only related to reading act techniques, but crosses over into the field ofthe subject’s self-consciousness. The function of Kosovel’s ironisation istherefore hermeneutic.It needs to be said that Kosovel’s entire body of poetry, not only hisearly poems, are most strongly marked with the notion of the beautifulsoul. 10 M. Kos differentiates between two forms of this concept: the firstcan be traced in Kosovel’s early poetry, and bears close resemblance tothe Hegelian beautiful soul, more precisely, its post-romantic extrapolation.Some of Kosovel’s diary entries suggest that this form of the beautifulsoul was a source of great struggle for him. 11 The other form of this conceptwas prompted by a number of factors: Ivan Cankar’s ethos, the traumaticexperience of WWI, the allocation of a part of Slovenia’s coastal region toItaly, the experience of fascism in Trieste, and a strong sense of both artisticand ethical dormancy on the part of the Slovenes in Ljubljana. In Kosovel’sessays this other variant of the beautiful soul acquires the dimension ofthe new man/artist – a human being who is “the priest of truth, justice andbeauty” (CW 3/1: 650). Moreover, the other variant of the beautiful soul is,in fact, a bridge from the post-romantic beautiful soul to Kosovel’s socialand socialist commitment.Although, at a given moment, Kosovel left behind the early form of thebeautiful soul, his ‘cons’ poems did not articulate the other, more matureform, but precisely this naive one. “Cons” poems often lure the reader intoidentification with the “beautiful soul”, into some kind of “harmony withweary pain”. It is as though they were appealing to the melancholy andlonely aspect of reader’s subjectivity. Kosovel, of course, knew exactlywhat he was doing: he wanted the reader to see how utterly useless andethically futile it was, in that day and age, to regard yourself as a beautiful,melancholy subjectivity. It is through ironisation that “cons” poemsachieve this rupture in the reader’s identification with the beautiful soul– by distancing readers from the beautiful soul, as well as from their ownindulgence in it. Having achieved such an aesthetic distance, the reader ismore likely to think critically both about his social environment and hisrelation to it. A good example of this can be found in two poems: Culture’sProstitution and The Heart in Alcohol.A famous example of ironisation combined with metaphor appears inthe first three lines of the poem Spherical Mirror. 12 The spherical mirroris a metaphor for art that highlights deficiencies, and in this way stands incontrast to the normal mirror. Spherical Mirror achieves this through mon-230
alenka jovanovski: Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems …tage, by juxtaposing a newspaper fragment, a treatise on art and a snippetimitating a romantic model of poetry where chestnuts rustle by the water (l.7–9). All of this is bait to entice the beautiful soul, with the aim of preventingthe recipient from undergoing the wrong type of aesthetic identification(l. 10–11). 13The continuation of this poem, however, seems to carry more meaningfor Kosovel than the reader. Namely, Kosovel is ironic towards his own nihilo-metaphysicalsubjectivity, and wonders about his own poetic productionand the scope of its influence on society. The marginal line, in the formof a spherical mirror, “WHY DID YOU DROP/A GOLDEN BOAT INTOTHE MARSHES?” refers to his early, ‘velvety-style’ lyrics, with their ownform of the beautiful soul that is a total anachronism in the marshes of society– it can only be swallowed up. To my mind, this marginal line is utteredby a beautiful soul. At the same time it presents a critique of the weaknessof the degenerate Kant-Schiller model of the communicative efficacy ofaesthetic experience, in which the recipient passively and uncritically acquiescesand consents to social norms. 14 At the same time it is possible toread it as a way out of the deficiency of the degenerate model of aestheticexperience: the poet simply had to drop the golden boat of his velvety verseinto the marshy (social) reality of the everyday; he simply had to transformthe golden boat into a spherical mirror. In this way he was able to forge alink between life (the marshes) and poetry (the boat/the spherical mirror).The cognitive dimension of such verse suddenly gains in prominence:the spherical mirror is not simply any normal mirror; it is more distinctivelyshaped, one which throws the marshy social reality into sharp reliefand makes a caricature of it. Inter-textually playing with the reference toCankar’s white chrysanthemum, which Kosovel steeps in socialist red, thepoem offers another possible reading of new art. The socialist red chrysanthemumdoes not condemn society from an elevated position, but staysfirmly within society, criticising and operating from inside. Kosovel’s essaysand his signing up with the socialist party show that he began to seethe possibility of a productive social function more and more in connectionwith the class struggle. Only such art could become the social andtrue-to-life factor that would bring about a transformation from the marshySlovenian and European society infected with metaphysical nihilism to ahealthy, vibrant, constructive society, in which each individual adjusts hisor her understanding of the other (human being, society) in the light of anon-going self-reflection.In this way Spherical Mirror is suddenly transformed into a much widerreflection on contemporary art, as well as the poet’s creative strivings. Thereader, however, is pushed into a rather unpleasant role: there are only twopossibilities at one’s disposal. One can take on the role of a somewhatquiet, voyeuristic observer of the poet’s nihilistic self-destruction and hiscontemplation of the possibilities of poetry. Kosovel was aware of the absurdityof such a role for the reader; on more than one occasion he wrote inhis diary that each person has to go through the phase of nihilistic destructionand descend into nothingness within him or herself. 15 Everyone – but231
KOSOVEL’s poeticsespecially a poet – must walk across the bridge of nihilism alone. Onlythen can he go public with his poetry, confront it with its spherical mirrorand begin constructive work. This may be why, until the autumn of 1925,Kosovel was writing his ‘cons’ poems – and he himself might have understoodthem as merely fleeting products of his own personal and aesthetictransformation – in utter secrecy (Vrečko 1986: 110).The other role the reader of Kosovel’s ‘cons’ poems is offered to takeup is more daring, as it ventures to make sense where no sense can bemade. The reader in this case needs to overcome the paralysing aestheticdistance imposed by them. At the same time, one needs to tackle one’s own(in)ability to receive literary texts, having been exposed to predominantlynon-modernist texts. One has to constantly confront one’s desire to indulgein passive reception and, instead, overcome it with activity. The receptionof a given poem thus becomes markedly more active. In short, the poemforces the reader to take on the role which in the 19th century was reservedfor the literary critic.In the effort to create textual meaning, there is yet another, hidden task:the constitution of the reader’s subjectivity. It is arguably even more importantthan the first, and is typically modernist. Subjectivity formationin an early modernist text is characteristically marked by a contradiction:whilst guided by a desire for a unified and ordered subjectivity, it is alsopresented with the world-as-text that is fragmented, chaotic, and robbedof a unified referential framework. The desire for a unified subjectivity isthus constantly frustrated. Pinning down such a text becomes only possiblethrough the simultaneous transformation of the act of reading into an actof interpretation. In reading the ‘cons’ poems, the reader is therefore creatingan infinite subjectivity as mere interpretation – highly unstable, fragile,bound only to understanding as an endless (personal and historical) project.In other words, subjectivity as interpretation conceives of understandingas a multilingual project. (The latter possibility of the constitution of textualmeaning undoubtedly informs the Slovenian post-modern reception ofKosovel, which sees in the constituted meaning/subjectivity only one ofthe myriad possible subjectivities/interpretations.) Subjectivity as (mere)interpretation is therefore founded on aesthetic distance which, in the processof reading, constantly undermines meaning/subjectivity as somethingdefinite!It seems that when Kosovel’s constructivist poetry gave way to his poetryof constructiveness, Kosovel was able to see this quite clearly – in hisjournal he wrote: “Do you write with the heart? No / with a pen. But whatcomes not of the soul does not go soul-deep and has no price. Form” (CW3/1, Journal XII/16: 735). What might initially smack of anti-modernismin fact turns out to be very modern. To write with “a pen” is to reduceoneself to reason and therefore to an utterly non-aesthetic and inhumanmechanism. To write from “the heart” does not mean merely bringing tothe surface what was unconsciously already there; it also implies an ethicalquality and a wish to communicate that quality to the reader. Can it be thatthe interpretability of modernist subjectivity has in Kosovel found its fluid232
alenka jovanovski: Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems …solidity precisely in “the heart”? This would certainly go beyond the scopeof the ‘cons’ poems, and yet it seems that Kosovel did strive for such asolution at the time when his main focus within the multi-faceted world ofhis poetic creativity did fall on the poetry of constructiveness.In Spherical Mirror aesthetic distance gains the upper hand throughthe various “techniques” of preventing the reader from constituting andstrengthening the beautiful soul as a false type of subjectivity. At the sametime, however, the recipient’s turning outwards to society also fails toachieve its end: it remains on the level of a distanced reflection, on thelevel of interpretation. “Writing with the pen” thus never moves beyondoutlining the form, and is an impoverishment of life as such, and thereforecannot be introduced back into life. The primacy of aesthetic distance thusbecomes the cause for a loss of communicativeness. Brecht, who faced asimilar problem in relation to aesthetic distance, came to the conclusionthat the sine qua non of connecting life and art is aesthetic identification(Jauß 1982: 105).If there are ‘cons’ poems that succeed fairly well in balancing the relationbetween the individual and society, the poem Spherical Mirror representsa strong impediment to this effort. The recipient might even stopto critically ponder the role of contemporary art in society, but this willinevitably be along the lines of pronounced mental and theoretical exertion– in interpretation and self-interpretation, both of which are, as it were,built into the text of the poem, and which the reading act needs to realizeat least to some degree. This pronounced self-reflection is merely a slightlyfiner, even if self-critical, form of the recipient’s indulgent self-preoccupation.To come back to the question of the balance between the two poles ofthe communicative efficacy of aesthetic experience, I am once again led toconclude that, despite the freedom to interpret which the ‘cons’ poems pushthe reader towards, they nevertheless fail to establish an entirely living connectionbetween art and life.Kosovel himself consciously came to such a conclusion: after attendingthe reading of the zenitists in Ljubljana in April or May 1925, he acknowledgedthat the transformation they championed could not merely be aestheticor formal empty play. The transformation of art should not merely preventcertain typical aesthetic responses, but needs to become an inner transformation.What Kosovel had in mind was an inner transformation, first of theindividual, and then of society. The cause as well as the consequence of bothwas new art. 16 This realisation led Kosovel gradually (soon after joining thesocialist party in the summer of 1925) to shift the focus within his admittedlyvery diverse creative aspirations from the writing of ‘cons’ poems to the poetryof constructiveness, and eventually to plans for writing prose.I will try to get to the core of this shift by bringing in the principle ofmovement – but movement in what sense? I do not take it in the sense ofspeed, which is what the Italian futurists so enthused over. Kosovel, if anything,had an ambivalent attitude towards such a meaning of movement. 17Nor do I mean it in the sense of montage as the structural principle of constructinga poetic text.233
KOSOVEL’s poeticsMontage compositions demand great associative speed on the part ofthe reader. They force one into leaps from one semantic field to another,into gluing together various fragments, into a modernist collage of variouspoetic forms; in short, they force the reader into greater mental activity.One is asked to see and acknowledge one’s own subjectivity as somethingdynamic, fluid, interpretable, as something radically unstable in an age ofinstability; to acknowledge defeat in modern man’s striving to create an orderedwhole from a chaotic world. The reader can accept this recognition,even delights in, or juggles with it – but it is just as legitimate to discardit, thinking, “No; my subjectivity is beautiful and whole; it is the worldaround me that is subverting it, setting me up for a tragic fall.”This latter possibility of receiving Kosovel’s ‘cons’ poems is possiblyone of the main reasons that Slovenia, until as late as the ‘seventies, wasunable to receive avant-garde or rather modernist art (also Kosovel’s) as arelevant form of art. The reader, whose aesthetic education was based on adegenerate Kant-Schiller schema, simply could not perceive ‘cons’ poemsas anything but bad poetry. After all, these small explosive poems blew thereader’s (traditional) horizon of expectations to smithereens. The core ofrejection of these poems thus turned mainly on the fact that the subversionof the idea of subjectivity as an absolute or even a monolithic totality (thesubversion of the post-romantic concept of the beautiful soul) was totallyunacceptable to the great majority of the Slovenian readers.Once both of the mentioned explanations are discarded, we are left witha third possibility. The movement principle can only be the principle withwhich Kosovel strove – in the most constructive way – to open out hispoetry into society. But this movement cannot be compared to a straightline, which is what characterises the above-mentioned principles of movement.The principle of movement I am speaking of is more a vector – it ismovement with direction, which aims for a given goal and a certain effectin the reader and in the society. It is this type of movement which can belinked with the concept of “movement philosophy”, which Kosovel understoodas action: being actively engaged with social questions. 18 Kosovel’spoetic activity gradually began to build itself directly into society with literaryreadings, lectures, and various plans for starting clubs and societies,and the Strelci publishing house (see Vrečko 1986: 168–214, 218–229). Inother words, Kosovel’s poetic creativity began to take on the form of socialcreativity, creativity which would mediate between – and connect – differentindividuals as different parts of society, at once transforming it andbinding it into a dynamic whole. In a sense, Kosovel’s poetic activity wasbeginning to resemble the role of poeisis in ancient Greece before Plato. InKosovel, poetic poeisis becomes the poeisis of society.If what we have said is true, then this would be the most effective solutionto the communication crisis in modern art. This active engagementwith society, with life and truth that Kosovel strove to achieve in poetry,however, poses new challenges as well as threats to the search for balancebetween the two poles of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experience.The poetry of some Russian avant-garde artists, for example, did not234
alenka jovanovski: Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems …rise to meet the challenge, but instead succumbed to the threats, showing(a) a reduced recipient’s confrontation with him/herself, (b) a manipulated“reflection” of social norms and (c) a push for the ideologically controlled“reflection” to be socially in-built.Kosovel would probably have avoided this danger, even if it were notfor his untimely death. His essays are full of references to “true” art growingout of the artist’s personal inner realisation – from the time of walkingalone across the bridge of nihilism. The strong emphasis Kosovel laid onthe need to turn vitally into oneself is a fairly good guarantee that also inhis own constructive poetry he would succeed in drawing the reader intocritical self-reflection.This hypothesis, however, would need to be tested against an analysisof Kosovel’s ethical stance, the basis of which would most probably be aspecial form of religion that has managed to avoid ideology. And it wouldprobably reveal the precious remains of that extra-aesthetic field to whichthe aesthetic experience turned before the modern age, whereas in Kosovelit realized itself through greater emphasis on ethos or through expressionssuch as man, humanity. 19 An uneasy balance between the two poles of thecommunicative efficacy of aesthetic experience would probably have beenachieved in Kosovel’s socialist revolutionary poetry through an unabated insistenceon the recipient’s self-understanding as that tool which puts a holdon frenzied party activity or a totalitarian regime as the super-subject.Translated by Ana JelnikarNOTES1KU § 6.18, § 8.24–25, § 9.32, § 22.67.2KU § 20.64, § 21.65, § 40.158.3See Manifesto del futurismo in Grisi 1990: 29, 30. Benjamin talks about theshock as the main intention of the Dadaist art (Benjamin 2000: 335).4“‘Fiat ars – pereat mundus’, says Fascism, and, as Marinetti admits, expectswar to supply the artistic gratification of a sense perception that has been changedby technology. This is evidently the consummation of l’art pour l’art. Mankind,which in Homer’s time was an object of contemplation for the Olympian gods, nowis one for itself. Its self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experienceits own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation ofpolitics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicisingart” (Benjamin 2000: 337).5CW 3/1, 35 (The Breakdown of Society and Collapse of Art): “This fictiveconversation is a faithful portrayal of our soul life. Eschewing reality, fearing thehard and unbending stick of the everyday, and what inevitably follows – utterdisorientation in all questions regarding life, even the most vital.” CW 3/1: 37: “…if to him (the artist), life’s ideal becomes inactivity and leisure, then he loses thatpotent force that originates from hard contact with everyday life’s battles. If hissole aim is self-fulfillment, he loses the power to solve everyday questions, he losescontact with life in its entirety.”235
KOSOVEL’s poetics6See Kosovel’s letter to F. Obidova, dated 27/8/1925 (CW 3/1: 401), where theact of realising is not empty didacticism: “Literature must bring about some kind ofa knowledge [spoznanje] in people! It has to intensify life’s power!”7CW 3/1, Journal VII (1925): 656, 28: “… art is the vehicle of life and not asedative drug to be taken for pleasure, it is a stimulus for the soul’s activity to becontinued in living.”8CW 3/1, Journal VII/10: 651 and Journal VII/35, 37, 38: 658 isl.9“The frustration of such basic expectations leaves a blank which the traditionalnovel had always filled” (Iser 1978: 207). Iser’s statement can easily be applied toKosovel’s ‘cons’ poems. For ‘a blank’, see also Iser 1978: 202–203. For ‘the minusfunction’, see Iser 1978: 207 – 210. “the more modern the text, the more will itfulfill its ‘minus functions’” (Iser 1978: 208).10M. Kos draws our attention to a number of ‘velvety’ words in the ‘cons’ poems;“for example: soul, suffering, pain, beauty, dreams, heart, solitude, sickness/grief,weariness” (M. Kos 1997: 163, see also p. 145-152 and 154-160).11For an illustration of this, see his letter to F. Obidova, dated 25/8/1923 (CW3/1: 381): “It is autumn today, which robs Beauty to reveal the Truth [this Truth isDeath, comment by A. Jo.], which is infinite terror. Do you ever think about – thebeauty of autumn – that infinite sadness, in which you find yourself alone, and giveyourself over to this embrace of sadness, as a child would to his mother, and you area harmony of weary pain, and all you want is to lie down and sleep?”12“Is it the mirror’s fault / if you have a hooked nose./ Hail to Heine!/ Look ina spherical mirror / to know yourself!/ Nationalism is a lie./ Chestnuts rustling bythe water,/ the autumn has come to antiquaries./ Their shops are full of antiques./Ting-a-ling./ Hang yourself from a swing. / Red chrysanthemum. / Autumn grave…/ white grave./ Ivan Cankar. // WHY DID YOU DROP / A GOLDEN BOAT INTOTHE MARSHES?”13Spherical Mirror, l. 10-11: “Ting-a-ling./ Hang yourself from a swing.”14See CW 3/1: Journal VII/9: 650 (from 1925): “…only the artist who has steppedout of the marshes of contemporary society and walked into a new society he himselfhas felt – only he is the new priest of truth, justice, humanity and goodness.”15CW 3/1: 398 and 400 (letters to F. Obidova, dated 12/7 and 17/7/1925).16“Revolution is a phenomenon that effects content not form. /…/ The revolutionof form is too shallow and too short, the revolution we herald is the revolution of thecontent of the European, the revolution of life as such, because if there is no suchrevolution there can be no art” (CW 3/1, Journal VII/37: 658).17See the manifesto To The Mechanics! in Kosovel 2003a. See also Vrečko1996.18CW 3/1, Journal, VII/7: 650, see Vrečko 1986: 105-110.19About this, see Kermauner 1993.WORKS SITEDAdorno, Th. (2002): Aesthetic Theory, trans. by Robert Hullot-Kentor, London– New York: Continuum [Athlone Contemporary European Thinkers].Benjamin, W. (2000): »Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction«, transl. byHarry Zohn, in: The Continental Aesthetics Reader, ed. by Clive Cazeaux,London – New York: Routledge.Gadamer, H. G. (2001): Resnica in metoda, Ljubljana: LUD Literatura. –[Warheit und Methode]236
alenka jovanovski: Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems …Grisi, Fr., ed. (1994): I futuristi, Milano: Newton (Grandi tascabili economici;260).Iser, W. (1978): The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, London andHenley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Iser, W. (1993): The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology,Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.Jauss, H.R. (1982): Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics, transl. byMichael Shaw, introduction by Wlad Godzich, Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press (Theory and History of Literature; vol. 3).Kant, I. (1999): Kritika razsodne moči, Ljubljana: <strong>ZRC</strong> <strong>SAZU</strong>. – [Kritik derUrteilskraft = KU]Kermauner, T. (1993): Poezija slovenskega <strong>za</strong>hoda, 3. del, Maribor: Obzorja.Kos, J. (1995): Na poti v postmoderno, Ljubljana: LUD Literatura.Kos, J. ( 2001): Primerjalna zgodovina slovenske literature, Ljubljana: Mladinskaknjiga.Kos, M. (1997): »Kako brati Kosovela?«, in: Srečko Kosovel, Izbrane pesmi,Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 129–165.Kosovel, S. (1977): Zbrano delo III, drugi del (CW, Collected Work III, 2ndvolume). Ljubljana: Državna <strong>za</strong>ložba Slovenije.Kosovel, S. (2003): Integrali 26’, ed. by A. Ocvirk, Ljubljana: Cankarjeva<strong>za</strong>ložba (facsimile of the 1967 edition, Ljubljana: ČZP Ljudska pravica [Belakri<strong>za</strong>ntema]).Kosovel, S (2004): Man In a Magic Square: poems, transl. by Nike KocijančičPokorn, Katarina Jerin, Philip Burt, introduction by Janez Vrečko, Ljubljana:Myra Locatelli, k. d. and Mobitel d. d.Marquard, O. (1994): Estetica e anestetica, Milano: Il Mulino.Vrečko, J. (1986): Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgarda inzenitizem, Maribor: Obzorja.Vrečko, J. (1996): »Kosovelovo razmerje do moderne tehnike«, in: Kras vol. 3,n. 14 (27. 5. 1996), 8–11.• ABSTRACTUDK 821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / reader-response theory / aestheticexperienceA reader’s response analysis of Kosovel’s poems focuses on the break in thecommunicative efficacy of an aesthetic experience, in as much as this is suggestedby the poet’s shift away from his “velvety” lyrics in search of a newpoetic expression. The paper’s starting point is the relationship between therecipient’s turning in on him/herself and his or her openness into the extraaestheticsphere. The crisis of the Kant-Schiller scheme of aesthetic experienceled avant-garde artists to revolutionise their poetic forms in an attemptto counterbalance the recipient’s self-indulgent introspection with an openingout into society, into life itself. Through ironisation of the “beautiful soul”,Kosovel’s “cons” poems prevent the reader from indulging in introspection;rather they force him to adopt aesthetic distance, from where he/she is able to237
KOSOVEL’s poeticsevaluate him-/herself as well as the values of society. In some “cons” poems thetwo poles of the aesthetic experience’s communicative efficacy are in balance,but in others this balance is disrupted through too great an aesthetic distance.In these poems, the constitution of meaning is enabled through a pronouncedinterpretative activity on the part of the recipient, whereby the interpretativeeffort corresponds to the effort needed to constitute one’s own subjectivity.Since the outcome of both is merely subjectivity as interpretation, the recipientonce again fails to open out into society to the satisfactory extent. Kosovel sawa way out of such a condition in socialist activity and in integrals, which wouldlead the recipient to transform his/her critical self-evaluation and an evaluationof his/her society into action, thereby directly incorporating it into society.238
'QUALE TRIESTINITà?':VOICES AND ECHOESFROM ITALIAN TRIESTEKatia PizziUniversity of London, Great BritainIn re-evaluating as large as possible a corpus of Triestine poetry in Italian,my article intends to court the poetics and production of Srečko Kosovel.As a scholar of Triestine literary identities, it is a challenge for me to assessa ‘state of poetry’ at a specified time in Triestine history in terms ofits marginality vis-à-vis a central ‘elsewhere’: the thought and work ofthe eminent Slovene poet Srečko Kosovel. My argument starts with singlingout a number of Italian poets who were, grosso modo, contemporaryto Kosovel, some of whom may well have been familiar to him, suchas Scipio Slataper (1888–1915), Giulio Camber Barni (1891–1941), andUmberto Saba (1883–1957). I will subsequently mention, if in passing, acluster of hardly memorable poets who were associated with the climate ofvirulent italianità that helped give rise to and sustain the fascist phenomenon.Finally, I plan to devote special attention to the Futurist avant-garde,who, in its Constructivist inflection, is, of course, particularly relevant toKosovel. Early on, the Futurists appropriated Trieste as a radically modernurban space and, as such, an ideal platform to voice their ideological andaesthetic credos. In the course of my exposition, mention will also be madeto a small number of exquisitely local concerns, such as irredentismo, thegrave heritage of the Risorgimento, and the unresolved, belated attachmentto the Romantic tradition, a burden that weighed heavily on Triestine poetryup until relatively recently.The generation of Triestine and Julian authors who sought both culturalescape and legitimisation in Florence in the early years of the XX century, andScipio Slataper in particular, played an instrumental role in defining ItalianTriestine literature as it is commonly understood. Since the late XIX centurythe prevailing cultural orientation combined conservative Romanticism andPositivism. Its Italian inspiration, ideologically and aesthetically influencedmore specifically by the poet Giosuè Carducci, whose work was also familiarto Kosovel, allowed a backward-looking search for cultural legitimisation.Conversely, Trieste’s particular geo-political position allowed thefreedom to experiment further and wider. The result was an unmediatedcombination of asynchronous cultural trends. A number of pre-war authors,to include Slataper and the brothers Carlo and Giani Stuparich, powerfullyPrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue239
KOSOVEL’s poeticsaffected by a crisis of identity emerging during their Florentine exile, combineda self-centred autobiographical style with outmoded repéchages intothe most hackneyed Italian literary tradition: a ‘spiritual encyclopedism’, asErnestina Pellegrini puts it, combining a number of heterogeneous, at timeseven incompatible, cultural and historical elements. 1Is it true that Trieste had neither a cultural tradition nor a cultural sceneat the beginning of the XX century, as Slataper provocatively declared ina frequently quoted ‘Lettera triestina’? 2 The answer must be in the negative,for the city at the time was by no means a cultural desert: Triesteboasted, among other events, the first Futurist soirées and the first Italianperformance of Wagner’s Tetralogy. The cultural life of the Slovene community,though a ‘counter culture’ as Marina Cattaruz<strong>za</strong> puts it, was vibrant,as testified by the theatrical, musical and poetic activities promotedby the Narodni dom, the numerous periodical publications, from Edinost toNovi rod to Ženski svet, to quote only a few that are relevant to Kosovel. 3Slataper’s statement is therefore entirely provocative, designed to shakeup an environment at the cultural margins of Italy perceived as being toosteeped in trade and eager to secure a place for itself in the national sphere.Slataper and his acolytes hoped to achieve this national integration by divinginto the most canonical and idealised cultural tradition, that of Florence.Having ‘descended’ on Florence almost as a barbarian gasping for civili<strong>za</strong>tion,Slataper contributed to the influential periodical La Voce from 1909and took over its editorship in 1910. 4 On Slataper’s example, a whole generationof young Triestine intellectuals (the already mentioned brothersStuparich, Virgilio Giotti, Biagio Marin, Alberto Spaini, Gemma Harazimand others), persuaded in many cases by the impending contingency of beingcalled up to arms, attended University courses in Florence and formeda close circle, contributing regularly to La Voce and disseminating theModernist, pro-European agenda that was integral to the periodical. 5This generation ‘invented’, as if in a veritable ‘invention of tradition’,Triestine literature away from Trieste, while in Florence, a city they perceivedas instrumental in bringing the Triestines back to their alleged all-Italian roots. 6 Their main aim was to act as catalysts, facilitating the discoveryof an alleged ‘genuine Triestine soul’ in their fellow citizens. In reality,however, and quite apart from both La Voce’s calls for moderni<strong>za</strong>tion andinternationalisation of literary culture and the vibrant presence of non-Italian cultures in Trieste, the main force at play here remained the pre-eminenttoscanità of the vociani that both legitimised and sustained an equallypowerful idea of a local loyalty and singularity in the Triestines. 7 The mysticaland revolutionary ‘discovery’ of one’s own regional soul seems tome, at closer scrutiny, as a poetic disguise whereby a constructed toscanitàbecame the model of a largely ‘invented’ and contrived triestinità. 8 A confusedcity, in search of a literary identity it could call its own, was clearlyvulnerable to discourses centred on the notion of an eminent, undisputed,and, above all, single national and cultural identity.Statements advocating the crucial role of Trieste as ‘centro del mondo’,historical seat of a conflict between the spirit of an elusive culture and the240
katia pizzi: 'QUALE TRIESTINITÀ?': VOICES AND ECHOES FROM ITALIAN TRIESTEmatter of an all too tangible trade, recur in Slataper’s fiction. 9 In the lyricalprose Il mio carso (1912) ‘la storia è vissuta liricamente, perciò noncompresa.’ 10 Slataper produces here curious overlaps of belated Sturm undDrang Romanticism, a rhetorical vitalismo reeking of D’Annunzio, andmystical, generic statements on the urban modernity of ‘la città’ as opposedto the rural lack of self-awareness of the Karst, a mental landscape evokedwith great affection but also as culture-less and backward-looking. 11 It isimportant to mention that Slataper’s Mio carso was eventually to becomealmost the prototype text of modern Triestine literature. Its publication created,almost ex novo, a literary province in Italy and paved the way forthe success of other major local Italian authors, such as Italo Svevo andUmberto Saba.Despite Slataper’s ‘ungenerous treatment’ of the Triestine Slovenes, asargued persuasively by Boris Pahor, his figure remains relevant in terms ofhis awareness of the ethnic diversity and vitality of the Karst (it should beborne in mind that Slataper was possibly the first Italian Triestine authorwho granted attention – albeit partially – to the Slovenes of Trieste and thehinterland) and the ethical roots of his philo-Europeanism. 12 Both notionsare of course applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Kosovel himself and studiesof the two authors in a comparative perspective are welcome, particularlyif shedding light on the linguistic as well as widely cultural aspect: Kosovelhad a conceivably good knowledge of Italian even though his awareness ofItalian literature and thought appears mediated, rather than through Slataperand the ‘vociani triestini’, via the far more influential minister and scholarIvan Trinko (1863-1954), an eminent translator and mediator between thetwo cultures, his close friend and fellow contributor of Lepa Vida, Mirijam(Fanica Obid), and his Neapolitan friend Carlo Curcio. 13The return to an idealised all-Italian past and the growing appeal of a localtradition were perceived even more intensely after the end of the GreatWar. Historical events severed Trieste from its Austro-Hungarian past, butthe heritage of the Empire was also increasingly being cherished in an idealisedform and handed down from one generation to the next. 14 After defectingfrom the Austrian army to join the Italian troops under false names,Slataper and many Triestine writers of his generation, such as Enrico Elia,Carlo Stuparich, Ruggero Timeus Fauro, died in battle, and the survivorstook on their heritage almost intact, demonstrating an inability (perhaps anunwillingness?) to detach themselves from Florentine pre-war culture, andmove forward. In particular Giani Stuparich’s survival of a war catastrophethat had killed his brother Carlo and best friend Slataper was experiencedwith intense guilt and shame and subsequently bitterly atoned for throughhis diligent repetition of themes and styles belonging to a pre-war world.By doing this, Stuparich was not merely paying tribute to a generation ofdead writers: he was also contributing to perpetuating a local literary repetition,unwittingly reinforcing triestinità.We are all aware of the influence, indeed of the formative role, exercisedby the Great War on Kosovel, a childhood experience that left indeliblemarks in his poetics. The collection of poems La Buffa by Giulio Camber241
KOSOVEL’s poeticsBarni, written in the trenches and published only in 1950, demonstrates theextent to which the Risorgimento remained a powerful, if anachronistic,source of inspiration in Trieste. Barni’s confessional poetry finds moraland aesthetic premises in the pre-war, in irredentismo, and the widespreadnotion of the war as a social and national equalizer. Alongside many wardiaries of this type, however, La Buffa illustrates the progressive demiseof Barni’s idealised ‘just war’. Visions of titanic struggle typically giveway to increasing instances of human degradation, resentment, bitterness,and collapse of patriotic ideals. See, in particular, the poems ‘Simone’ and‘Il cappellano’: ‘Simone, amico caro,/ purtroppo la guerra è finita./ Checosa ne faremo/ di questa nostra vita?’ and ‘Il cappellano militare/ disseche Gesù Cristo/ amava tanto la guerra./ Concluse:/ “Viva l’Italia!/ EvvivaS.Antonio!”’ 15 Resonant of several of Kosovel’s own positions, Barni’s poetrycaptures very effectively the sense of emptiness and futility, the powerlessness,the anti-clericalism which were all contributing factors to therise of fascism. A classic war poet in terms of his linguistic and narrativerealism, Barni bans any lyrical or rhetorical embellishment: the episodeshe describes are invariably brief and stripped naked of detail, with directspeech inserted spontaneously, frequently in the dialect of the individualsoldiers. The prevailing epic tone is also descending directly from theItalian unification: the Great War is typically celebrated as the last war ofthe Risorgimento. 16One of the greatest supporters of Barni in Trieste was the poet UmbertoSaba, who wrote a frank and complimentary preface to La Buffa publishedin the first edition. My outline of a ‘state of Italian poetry’ in Trieste wouldbe incomplete without devoting some attention to Saba and his early collectionsof poems. Saba portrays his native Trieste as a concrete urban space,invested with an ontological dimension of its own, densely populated withhuman collectivities who work, talk, eat, and walk: a city buzzing withpeople, animals, and objects. 17 Saba’s habitual itineraries run along manyof the old Triestine streets, thereby granting them literary dignity: Via delLaz<strong>za</strong>retto Vecchio, Via della Pietà, Via del Monte, Via Domenico Rossetti.The poet found most of his inspiration in his home town and displayed anobsessive, if ambivalent, interest in it, referring frequently to Trieste in hisletters, poems and prose works, loathing it while there and missing it terriblywhen staying elsewhere. 18 For Saba, however, Trieste is not the ‘villetentaculaire’ of Modernism nor is it the dynamic metropolis of the Futurists,but, in the words of Russo, rather an ‘urban georgic’. 19 Its key featuresinclude its insularity, its domestic air of cosy backwardness allowing thepoet a secluded existence, quite apart from contemporary movements andschools. Saba writes about a pre-war Trieste, prior to the destruction ofCittavecchia: a city, in short, which has not yet fallen prey to the devil ofmodernity –here Saba is antipodean to the contemporary Futurist avantgarde,who, as will be argued below, praised Trieste for opposite reasons.Most importantly, in this respect Saba appears to be also antipodean toKosovel, whose Trieste is dominated by beauty and doom following thearson of Edinost (1925), a city emasculated by the large waves of emigrant242
katia pizzi: 'QUALE TRIESTINITÀ?': VOICES AND ECHOES FROM ITALIAN TRIESTESlovenes looking for a better future in the Americas, a Trieste who is a witnessto the ‘sick heart’ of the poet (see, in particular, ‘Blizu polnoči’). 20In Saba’s collection ‘Trieste e una donna’ (1910–12), the city takes onthe role of a character in its own right: the poet’s own antagonist. 21 His ambivalencetowards the city results most frequently in contiguity of Triestewith female, specifically maternal, figures. The early, experimental poemsto Bianca, later excluded from Il Canzoniere, testify to this. In Saba, thematernal complex is so overwhelming that poetry itself can be viewed as asecond, good mother, able to fill in the emotional gaps left by the poet’s reallife bad mother, Rachele Poli. 22 In Pellegrini’s words, ‘la poesia di Saba[…] narra la lotta del poeta contro il complesso materno’ -Trieste becomesa ‘uterine city’ constructed in the specular image of a city within a city: thelegendary Jewish ghetto of Cittavecchia. 23 The celebrated ‘A mia moglie’is a hymn to Saba’s wife Lina regarded as an archetype of all-encompassingmaternity: on the poet’s own admission the poem reads like one a childcould have written for his own mother if he were allowed to marry her. 24Similarly to Petrarch’s Laura, Lina here is ultimately ‘la madre’, a disquietingfigure who looms large as the city tends to disappear, as if Lina andTrieste were antithetical and one could only survive to the detriment of theother. 25 It is especially in collection Trieste e una donna that Saba exploresvarious positions of the triad woman-mother-Trieste: the poems ‘Trieste’,‘Verso casa’, ‘Città vecchia’, ‘Dopo la tristez<strong>za</strong>’, ‘Tre vie’, ‘Via della pietà’,‘Il fanciullo appassionato’, ‘Il molo’, ‘Più soli’, all deal with a Triesteantagonised as a mother symbol. The pervasive dimension remains domesticity,and it is precisely under the guise of domesticity that Trieste comesto play a powerful role in Saba’s poetry. In short, Saba’s intimist, Oedipal,parochial approach to Trieste appears to be far removed from Kosovel’ssocial and political engagement with the city.Saba’s emphasis on the comfortable provincialism of his home town arealso alien from both the contemporary climate of virulent italianità andthe nationalist/ internationalist attitude of the Futurist avant-garde. Morevigorously than elsewhere, in Trieste a Fascist officialdom attempted to institutionalisea deeply seated emphasis on italianità. 26 Trieste’s diverse andcomplex ethnic make-up was largely replaced with an ‘invention of tradition’whereby, for instance, legendary Roman genealogies were assignedto various Italian political elites. 27 A straightjacket of Italian officialdomwas imposed on the city’s multi-ethnic and multi-cultural identity, notablythrough acts of violence and persecution directed towards the Slovenecommunity. Italianità, frequently proclaimed in dramatic, mystical termsas a fatalità, an ineluctable fate, and frequently conflated with the similarlyambiguous triestinità, equated the composite local identity with the culturaland literary traditions of Italy alone. 28All of these factors contribute to what Ernesto Sestan defined as ‘ipertrofiadel sentimento nazionale’, a powerful national feeling inflated bythe liberal-nazionali and handed down to the fascist Establishment, whocarried it forward. 29 The example set by the Fiume enterprise of 1919–20,and particularly by its charismatic leader Gabriele D’Annunzio, similarly243
KOSOVEL’s poeticscontributed to identifying italianità with a rising fascist regime eager toestablish itself in the area. A whole set of discourses which were deeply,ambiguously enmeshed with italianità (the pseudo-classical ritual, thestaging of a Roman imperial past, the rhetoric of ‘discorsi dal balcone’)were experimented on the Triestine stage in the course of the 1910s and1920s before being adopted in the rest of Italy. Italianità became even morefirmly synonymous with anti-slavismo: to quote one example for all – thearson of the Narodni dom-Hotel Balkan on 13 July 1920. I will not dwellhere on the copious, eminently forgettable poetry composed and publishedin Trieste in praise of the fascist regime and its leader Benito Mussolini – Iwill quote few names and dates, for the sake of contextualisation: AlmaSperante (pseudonym of Carlo Mioni; 1871–1946), Corraj (pseudonym ofRaimondo Cornet; 1887–1945), Nella Doria Cambon (1872–1948). It issignificant that both Corraj and Cambon portrayed Mussolini as a catalystable to draw together tradition and modernity without contradiction: this isof course a paradox, but an important one, and one that fascism borrowedlargely from Futurism. The triumph of mechanical aesthetics and protoconsumerismcelebrated by the fascists are redolent of claims that wereadvocated in the first place by the Futurist avant-garde. 30Not only were the earliest ever Futurist performances staged in Triestebetween 1908 and 1909, but also the first proper Futurist soirée took placeat Trieste’s Politeama Rossetti on 12 January 1910. Kosovel, who later wasto attend occasionally the Teatro Rossetti, was obviously still too young tohave been in the audience. In 1908 Marinetti took an active part in demonstrationsin Trieste advocating the city’s ‘restitution to Italy’. The soonto-beleader of Futurism, ‘spoke at the Gymnastic Society, defending theTriestine students shot in Vienna and declaring that one day Trieste wouldhave its own university […]. The whole episode ended in tumultuous fights,and Marinetti was arrested.’ 31 However, a Futurist group proper gatheredtogether in Trieste in 1922 (1924 according to other sources) under theself-appointed leadership of Bruno Sanzin (b.1906). Sanzin collected andprinted the pamphlet Marinetti e il futurismo (1924) and edited a Futuristcolumn in the periodical Italia Nova, later to become a journal in its ownright with the title Energie futuriste, edited by Kosovel’s friend GiorgioCarmelich. In his poetry, Sanzin incorporated dynamism, speed, mechanicism,and patriotic heroism. 32 In the poem ‘Pensieri in libertà’, Sanzinvisualised flags waving in the wind in Trieste: the nationalist thematic ishere combined with dynamism of the struggle, ‘la lotta’, understood asthe essence of life. 33 The graphic impressionism of the scene, windsweptand punctuated with colours, together with the devices of onomatopoeiaand repetition clustered around the iconic flags, are Sanzin’s tribute to theideological and aesthetic credo of Futurism. Sanzin emphasises both thepatriotic and urban bias of Futurism, and combines them with other themesof avant-garde inspiration, from dynamism to energy, to ‘trascenden<strong>za</strong> artistica’,particularly in his ‘aeropoems’ Fiori d’Italia (1942).Vladimiro Miletti (b.1913) also embraced unconditionally the avantgarde.Miletti was described as the archetypal elegant and aggressive244
katia pizzi: 'QUALE TRIESTINITÀ?': VOICES AND ECHOES FROM ITALIAN TRIESTEFuturist, ‘giovane poeta elegante, sportivo, aderente all’avanguardia piùstrepitosa’. 34 In poems such as ‘Pioggia veloce’ and ‘Manicure’, the emphasison dynamism and speed acquires a surreal, ironic ring: Milettiobviously espoused the linguistic iconoclasm of Futurism with a lighter,airy element, reminiscent of the poetry of Aldo Palazzeschi: ‘Mi sembra untuffo/ scagliarmi in macchina/ nell’acquazzone,/ mentre scodinzola il tergicristallo,/lieto che piova.’ ‘Le forbicine, beccuzzi ghiotti/ di passerotti,/sulle ciliegie/ delle tue unghie.’ 35 As typical of Triestine Futurism, Milettiis characterised by an irreverent, comic approach. 36 Patriotism becomeshere a secondary preoccupation as the poetics of the inconsequential andthe inconsistent prevail.The Futurists elected Trieste, after Milan and Paris, as Futurist city parexcellence. 37As a city ‘without a past’, Trieste was ideally projected towards a futureof uncompromisingly urban and mechanical modernity. However,the city’s embrace of all that was modern, together with the insecuritiesgenerated by its ‘outsider complex’, brought about further contradictions.Ultimately, they prompted Trieste to cling further to the most traditionalliterary expressions of Italy with indiscriminate enthusiasm. Fascist ideologiescontinued to espouse Trieste’s italianità with modernity and their ownpromotion of industrial renovation, particularly renovation of the moribundTriestine port, a partnership celebrated symbolically in the city’s grantingof honorary citizenship to Mussolini on 20 May 1924.Quite apart from the national ideology mentioned above, a more properlyModernist, more open to European influences, and therefore more noteworthy,experience, was attempted by Giorgio Carmelich, together with EmilioMario Dolfi. In 1922–23, Carmelich put together the pamphlets Epeo andthe Dadaist Eeet (spelled with 18 ‘e’s on the frontispiece), an experimental‘anti-book’ (‘anti-libro’) composed of notes, drawings, words in freedom,and theatrical ‘sintesi’. Carmelich pursued his experimental inclinationswithin a ‘Bottega di Epeo’ and in 1924 the Triestine periodical Crepuscoloincluded a ‘Futurist page’. 38 In 1925, Carmelich edited the periodical 25.Even more worthy of note, and relatively under-researched as yet, isTrieste’s own contribution to the Constructivist experience, which is arguablyquite unique in Italy. Artists such as Milko Bambič and Veno Pilon,Ivan Čargo and Avgust Černigoj, all contributed to the periodical Tankand looked to Ljubljana as a powerful centre of attraction. Constructivismwas of course likely to be particularly attractive to Kosovel via his earlyNietzschean persuasion. Černigoj, in particular, was to exercise the deepestinfluence on Kosovel, who employed a Constructivist style, composed ofwords in freedom and typographic syntheses, to voice his concerns overhis own national identity. Kosovel scourged the Slovene nation, spurring itinto activity (see ‘Jaz protestiram’ and ‘Rodovnik’) and into looking aheadto a European future, which, of course, was to lead to the experience of thejournal Euroslave: Revue pour une vie neuve en Europe. 39Alongside Boris Pahor, and to conclude briefly, I remain persuaded thatthe more profoundly Modernist and most valuable significance of Kosovel’s245
KOSOVEL’s poeticsConstructivism lies in his humanist, pacifist and ethically Socialist conviction:a social revolution must remain constructive rather than destructive.In 1927, Černigoj published a Manifesto of the ‘Gruppo costruttivista’ inTrieste: tragically, and due to his premature disappearance a year earlier,Kosovel was unable to bring his contribution to this unrivalled experience.NOTES1Cf. E. Pellegrini, ‘Aspetti della cultura triestina tra Otto e Novecento’, Il Ponte,4(1980), pp.354–71.2S. Slataper, ‘Trieste non ha tradizioni di cultura’, first published in La Voce,11 February 1909, now in Scritti politici, ed. By G.Stuparich (Rome: Stock, 1925),pp.3–7.3M. Cattaruz<strong>za</strong>, ‘Slovenes and Italians in Trieste, 1850–1914’, 1914’, in Ethnic Identityin Urban Europe, ed. by Max Engman (Strasbourg: European Science Foundation;New York: New York University Press; Aldershot: Darmouth, c.1992) pp.182–219219(p.201). See also Boris Pahor, Srečko Kosovel (Pordenone: Studio Tesi, 1993), esp.pp.34–39.4Slataper’s ‘calata’ (=‘descent’) is a term widely used in his best known work Ilmio carso (Florence: La Voce, 1912).5G.Stuparich, for instance, started contributing to La Voce in 1913 with twoarticles dealing with federalism and the Czech and German nations. Stuparich’sfirst monograph, La nazione czeca (Catania: Battiato, 1915) was also publishedunder the auspices of La Voce and dedicated to its influential mentor GiuseppePrezzolini.6The idea of an ‘invention of tradition’ is in The Invention of Tradition, ed.by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983). A.Spaini declared in an interview with Giorgio Baroni: ‘La Voce servìcome ponte tra Trieste e l’Italia’ –see G.Baroni, Trieste e ‘La Voce’ (Milan: IstitutoPropaganda Libraria, 1975), p.91.7In recalling Slataper’s late night Florentine readings of excerpts of Il mio carso,Stuparich comments: ‘era proprio la scoperta poetica della mia anima triestina.[…] Io sentii, per merito della sua [Slataper’s] creazione, nascere il Carso dallaToscana.’ –G.Stuparich, ‘Romanticismo e “Il notiziario della III armata’, in Triestenei miei ricordi (Milan: Gar<strong>za</strong>nti, 1948), pp.29–39 (pp.30–32). 32). For both Slataperand Stuparich even the Tuscan landscape bore empathic traits with the Julian one:local landscapes can of course also act as powerful markers of identity formation.8For the toscanità of La Voce, see also Walter L.Adamson, Avant-GardeFlorence: From Modernism to Fascism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1993). See also Giorgio Voghera who disputed the notion that La Voce and Triestineculture had anything in common in his volume Anni di Trieste (Gorizia: Goriziana,1989), p.92: ‘Non so davvero come non si faccia a non accorgersi prima facie che la“civiltà” triestina […] differisce dalla civiltà vociana forse altrettanto che da quellaazteca. Di vero c’è soltanto che i vociani hanno aiutato molto i triestini.’9See S.Slataper, ‘L’avvenire nazionale e politico di Trieste’, in Scritti politici,p.93: ‘Trieste è posto di transizione –geografica, storica, di cultura, di commercio–cioè di lotta. Ogni cosa è duplice o triplice a Trieste, cominciando dalla flora246
katia pizzi: 'QUALE TRIESTINITÀ?': VOICES AND ECHOES FROM ITALIAN TRIESTEe finendo con l’etnicità. Finchè Trieste non ha coscien<strong>za</strong> di sé, finchè gli slaviparlano italiano e la cultura si compie e si soddisfa nel commercio, nell’interessecommerciale, la vita è discretamente pacifica. Appena nasce il bisogno di unacultura disinteressata, la crosta fredda è rotta e si discoprono i dibattiti ansiosi.’10Anco Marzio Mutterle, Scipio Slataper (Milan: Mursia, 1965), p.77.11See Alberto Abruzzese, Svevo Slataper e Michelstaedter: Lo stile e il viaggio(Venice: Marsilio, 1979), p.141: ‘Slataper […] partecipa ideologicamente al mitodi una società in ascesa. La macchina, il denaro, la merce, il commercio sono tuttecose fondamentalmente buone, per lo scrittore triestino: ma contemporaneamentesente il peso schiacciante di questa nuova dimensione umana che ha compreso edella quale è entrato a far parte.’12B.Pahor, Kosovel, p.48: ‘trattamento […] tutt’altro che generoso.’13 I am grateful to Professor Claudio Magris for drawing my attention to aconference taking place in Trieste focusing on the Karst in Kosovel and Slataper in acomparative perspective, though I have not been able to track down any publicationattached to the event.14After 1936, the Axis Berlin-Rome equalized Trieste’s imperial past to naziGermany under a generic ‘Germanic’ umbrella. Trieste became then a veritablebulwark that, while defending its own past, at the same time upheld fascism’s mostfateful political and military alliance.15G.Camber Barni, ‘Simone’ and ‘Il cappellano’, in La Buffa (Milan: Mondadori,1950), pp.197 and 156.16E.g. cf. G.Camber Barni, ‘La canzone di Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri’, in La Buffa, p.170: ‘Il24 maggio, la notte della guerra, Giuseppe Garibaldi uscì di sotto terra. E andòda Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri, che si beveva il vino; gli disse: “Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri, vecchio garibaldino,Lavez<strong>za</strong>ri, vecchio fante, è scoppiata un’altra guerra, ma io non posso andarci:perché sono sotto terra. Camerata di Bezzecca, mio vecchio portabandiera, và te sulPodigora, e porta la mia bandiera!’ The down-to-earth prosiness reveals the extentto which Barni’s interventionism was both genuine and irredentist, even though, asSaba pointed out, inevitably short-lived; see U.Saba, ‘Di questo libro e di un altromondo’ (preface to La Buffa), in Prose, ed. by Linuccia Saba (Milan: Mondadori,1964), p.690. See also the pacifist E.Elia (1891–1915), 1915), and particularly his warpoetry, collected in Schegge d’anima (Pordenone: Studio Tesi, 1981).17 Cf. E.Pellegrini, Le città interiori in scrittori triestini di ieri e di oggi(Bergamo: Moretti & Vitali, 1995), p.57: ‘Trieste è per Saba […] una città concreta,particolare, piena di persone che lavorano, parlano, mangiano, e piena di animali edi oggetti particolari’.18For a resumé of Saba’s multiple, even contradictory, attitudes towardsTrieste, see K.Pizzi, A City in Search of an Author: The Literary Identity of Trieste(London-Sheffield-New York: Sheffield Academic Press-Continuum, 2001), p.67.19Fabio Russo, ‘Saba, le cose, l’eco, l’ombra’, in Stelio Mattioni and others,Il Punto su Saba: Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Trieste 25–27 marzo 1984)(Trieste: Lint, 1985), pp.346–359 359 (p.347).20 Cit. in B.Pahor, Kosovel, pp.43–44. 44. However, Saba and Kosovel appearto have traits in common as well, such as the use of the rhyme and metaphors,especially the ones featuring birds –for the latter, cf. the illuminating contributionof Darja Pavlic in this collection.21See multiple poems collected in U.Saba, Il Canzoniere (Turin: Einaudi,5th edn, 1978). In the poem entitled ‘Trieste’, the city is famously likened to a‘ragaz<strong>za</strong>ccio aspro e vorace’ (p.79); in ‘Città vecchia’ the poet is contemplating,while walking, various human types redolent of the old quarter: ‘prostituta’,‘marinaio’, ‘il dragone’, ‘il friggitore’ (p.81): Saba’s attitude is contemplative to the247
KOSOVEL’s poeticsextent that, as clarified by Pellegrini, ‘non si attua mai la fusione […] di soggetto eoggetto’ –cf. E.Pellegrini, Le città interiori, p.55.22For the role of Saba’s mother, cf. esp. Mario Lavagetto, La gallina di Saba(Turin: Einaudi, 1989), pp.162–63 63 and Giacomo Debenedetti, ‘Saba e il grembodella poesia’, Galleria 1.2 (1960), pp.114–21.23E.Pellegrini, Le città interiori, pp.55 and 67. In the poem ‘A mamma’, part of thecollection Poesie dell’adolescen<strong>za</strong> e giovanili (1900–1907) 1907) Saba draws a reverent,if at times naïve, portrait of his mother as dominating his wider psychological andpoetic horizons (cf. M.Lavagetto, La gallina, p.137: ‘la figura della madre si staglia[…] come un oroscopo che accompagna la vicenda del protagonista, come un idolosilenzioso ed enigmatico che si innal<strong>za</strong> sulla prima raccolta’). In the collection Versimilitari (1908), the poem ‘Il bersaglio’ identifies a soldier’s target with the poet’sown mother: shooting the target equals getting rid of mother and any frighteningshadow she may cast on her son’s adult life (M.Lavagetto, La gallina, p.157).24M.Lavagetto, La gallina, p.89. The poem ‘A mia moglie’ is in the collectionCasa e campagna (1909–10).10).25M.Lavagetto, La gallina, p.95.26See Anna Millo, L’élite del potere a Trieste: Una biografia collettiva 1891–1938 (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1989), p.137. A local patriotic song comes to mind,‘El campanil de San Giusto’, composed in 1904, the year of Kosovel’s birth, likemany others praising a dubious italianità – lyrics by Augusto Levi, cit. in PaoloZoldan, Poesie patriottiche dei tempi passati: 1891–19141914 (Trieste: “Italo Svevo”,1968), p.55.27For example, Podestà Valerio was alleged to have descended from the ValeriaGens –cf. A.Millo, L’élite del potere, p.137.28See Angelo Ara and Claudio Magris, Trieste: Un’identità di frontiera (Turin:Einaudi, 1982, 1987), p.17.29E.Sestan, Venezia Giulia: Lineamenti di una storia etnica e culturale (Rome:Edizioni Italiane, 1947), pp.402ff. –cited in A.Millo, L’élite del potere, p.140.30See, for instance, Ugo Sartori, Paolo Veronese and Gino Villasanta, Trieste1934-XII: La storia, la vita, il domani (Trieste: Comitato per il ‘Giugno Triestino’,1934), p.64: ‘la vita economica di Trieste batte con la martellante caden<strong>za</strong> d’unmotore e somiglia al turbinoso giro di un’elica. Motori ed eliche: strumenti esimboli della sua poten<strong>za</strong>.’31Günter Berghaus, The Genesis of Futurism: Marinetti’s Early Career andWritings 1899–1909 (Leeds: Society for Italian Studies Occasional Papers, 1995),p.82.32See Giorgio Baroni, ‘Bruno G. Sanzin e il “suo” futurismo’, in UmbertoSaba e dintorni: Appunti per una storia della letteratura giuliana (Milan: IstitutoPropaganda Libraria, 1984), pp.243–51 (p.244): ‘Le opere del primo Sanzin ([…])sono caratteriz<strong>za</strong>te da tematiche ispirate ai miti futuristi: macchina, eroismo, patria,velocità, audacia; con una tinteggiatura di superomismo.’33B.Sanzin, ‘Pensieri in libertà’, in Il proprio mondo nei ricordi e nella fantasia(Padua: Rebellato, 1979), pp.68–69: ‘garrire di bandiere su gli spalti della storia.Con tanto vento che le animi di ondeggiamenti schiocchianti, perché sen<strong>za</strong> ventole bandiere sembrerebbero mute. Con tanto sole che riverberi il tripudio dei colori,perché sen<strong>za</strong> sole le bandiere sembrerebbero spente. Bandiere di gloria, bandieredi fede, bandiere di tutte le vittorie. Simboli di eterna sfida, poiché la lotta è l’unicacostante della vita.’34See Marcello Fraulini, ‘Prefazione’ in V.Miletti, Orme d’impulsi (Trieste:Società Artistico Letteraria, 1967), p.9.35V.Miletti, ‘Pioggia veloce’ and ‘Manicure’, in Orme di impulsi, pp.68 and 72.See also the Triestine Futurist poet Mario Cavedali, mentioned by F.T.Marinetti in248
katia pizzi: 'QUALE TRIESTINITÀ?': VOICES AND ECHOES FROM ITALIAN TRIESTE‘Battaglie di Trieste (aprile-giugno 1910)’, in Guerra sola igiene del mondo (1915),in Teoria e invenzione futurista (Milan: Mondadori, 1983), pp.245–53.36 Claudia Salaris records some irreverent nicknames chosen by TriestineFuturists, including Sempresù, Escodamè and Chissenè –C.Salaris, Storia delfuturismo (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1985), p.245.37See Roberto Curci and Gabriella Ziani, Bianco rosa e verde: Scrittrici aTrieste fra Ottocento e Novecento (Trieste: Lint, 1993), p.109; see also Joseph Cary,A Ghost in Trieste (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp.85–86.38C.Salaris, Storia del futurismo, pp.173–176.39See B.Pahor, Kosovel, pp.69–7070.• ABSTRACTUDK 821.131.1.09-1(450.361)»1900/1920«:821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / Italian poetry / Trieste / literaryavant-garde / futurism / literary influencesIn focusing on Italian Trieste and, in particular, on as large as possible a corpusof Triestine poetry contemporary with Kosovel, my paper provides a perspectivethat is entirely peripheral and ‘exterior’. Special attention is paid to theFuturist avant-garde: the Futurist leader Marinetti considered Trieste as Futuristcity par excellence and the first Futurist soirees took place at Teatro Rossettibetween 1909 and 1910. Futurism attracted a large group of local artists, someof whom (e.g. Carmelich and Cernigoj) were personally known by and becameclose to Kosovel, including the poets Sanzin and Miletti, who enthusiasticallyespoused Futurist linguistic experimentalism, as well as the movement’snational/nationalist tendencies. Poetry of national and romantic inspirationis also of fundamental importance: Slataper’s vitalist approach to the ruggedKarst region, though pre-War, provides scope for comparative approaches.Nationalist poetry, much of which officially compromised with the Fascistregime (Cambon, Corraj, Alma Sperante), is equally integral to the Triestinecultural landscape of the 1920s and ‘30s. By shedding light on a significantportion of poetry in Italian arising from the vibrant, if largely hostile, culturalenvironment of Trieste, my paper invites an implicit rather than explicit assessmentof Kosovel’s role and contribution to the European avant-garde.249
Analogies betweenS. Kosovel and C. Rebora, or:Is There Such a Thingas Italian Expressionism?Darja BetocchiState Secondary School France Prešeren, Trieste, ItaliaItalian literary critics have little doubt that Italian expressionism, in fact,does exist. They discover explicit expressionist traits in the style and subjectmatter of the young writers who began publishing in the Florentinemagazine ‘La Voce’ (1908–14, 1914–6) and are, accordingly, known as ‘Ivociani’. The critics Cesare Segre and Clelia Mortignoni even go so far asto argue that the “best ‘vociani’ represented the true literary avant-gardeof the pre-war era”. 1 This view – which, by referring to ‘vociani’ as ‘thetrue literary avant-garde’, indirectly casts doubt on the authenticity of otherItalian avant-garde movements – does seem excessive and biased. On theother hand, one might wonder whether the claim by Lado Kralj that ‘thereare no texts in Italian literature which could be defined as expressionist’ 2 isnot also somewhat radical.In my paper I attempt to give at least a partial answer to the question ofwhether the above-mentioned contentions about the existence of Italian expressionismare legitimate. In order to do so, I make a comparative analysisof Kosovel’s work, and poems and letters by a Milanese poet, ClementeRebora (1885–1957). The latter is believed to be “one of the most outstandingrepresentatives of ‘vocian’ expressionism”; 3 however, in order tomake a fair comparison of both authors and the period of expressionism,I only consider Rebora’s letters and poems written up to 1926 and 1927respectively. 4 The aim of my comparative analysis, of course, was to lookfor common and related expressionist elements.To begin with, unlike Kosovel, Rebora almost certainly was not familiarwith German expressionism. In the 835 letters that he wrote up to 1926,he mentions all kinds of writers and poets, but no expressionists. Besides,the literary experience of ‘Vociani’ and the emergence of German expressionismoccurred simultaneously, and – considering the Italian writers’poor knowledge of contemporary German literature – this makes it evenless possible that German expressionism would have any kind of influenceon either Rebora or any other ‘Vociani’. Italian expressionism, therefore,would have had to be an autochthonous phenomenon arising from the samecultural and historical crisis of Western civilisation that was observed andsubsequently articulated by German expressionists.Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue251
KOSOVEL’s poeticsKosovel not only conveyed the uneasiness of the then ‘dead generation,which soaked up into its young organism the hunger and horrors ofwar and…feels chaos inside’ 5 , but also explicitly, e.g. in his famous articleCrisis (Kri<strong>za</strong>) 6 , associated the birth of expressionism with the pre-waragonies of Europe. In the same vein, nineteen years older Rebora not onlyspoke of the ‘rottenness’ of the times 7 and gave a dramatic description ofthe tragic pre-war generation, which was destined to either ‘go mad or expandinto a vast incandescence’, 8 but also dedicated his first collection ofpoems in 1913 9 ‘To the first decade of the 20 th century’. Rebora’s brotherPietro shed some light on the meaning of this dedication: ‘To him (Rebora)the first years of the (20 th ) century were…a dark premonition of the devastationof 1914–8, which is the date of the downfall of a world…, a terrifyinghurricane, the beginning of our collective shipwreck.’ 10 Rebora, therefore,also associated the beginnings of his poetry with the perception of thecrisis in pre-war Europe.Similarly to German expressionists, the reaction to the perception of thedecaying Western world in Kosovel and Rebora was twofold – it consistedof polemics against modern civilisation, and, complementarily, of the feelingof being alienated from this civilisation, and therefore of loneliness andisolation, existential meaninglessness, inner disharmony and division – ofdissociation of the subject.In expressionism, polemics against the modern Western world cameacross mainly as criticism of urbanisation, technology and industrialisationwith mechanisation. 11 This is where Kosovel and Rebora probablyhave the least in common. In his expressionist poems, or rather poems withexpressionist elements (Cons poetry), Kosovel appears very critical particularlyof technology and mechanisation and of contemporary productionrelations, which cause the dehumanisation of people and human relations.This attitude is manifest in his proclamation To Mechanics! (Mehanikom!),which declares death to all mechanisms and to the ‘Man-automaton’, 12 andone could argue that a considerable part of Kosovel’s later poetry originatedfrom similar polemic tendencies. His poem Cons (Kons) is also veryindicative of this; its conclusion is that ‘Man is not an automaton’ and itis therefore necessary to destroy ‘Taylor factories’ 13 . Similarly, the poemCons: to the New Age (Kons: novi dobi) again declares death ‘to technomechanicalproblems’ and ‘Taylor’s system’, because ‘The new age iscoming/ when every worker is man/ when every man is a worker.’ 14 Thereis no trace of anything like this in Rebora’s poetry. Judging from Rebora’sessay on Leopardi (1910), the Milanese poet apparently saw mechanisationmainly in the light of a rigid classification of reality and a conformist equatingof ideas with behaviours, which destroyed the affluence and freedomof human creativity and was typical of modern civilisation. 15 However,the negative view of the modern world in Rebora’s poems is expressedpredominantly in his keen criticism of urbanisation, and dismal, corrupt,decaying cities, which the author often describes with stylistic tools of deformationand grotesquery – typical features of expressionism. The motifof a demonic metropolis, a hellish swamp, with its madhouses, hospitals,252
Darja Betocchi: Analogies between S. Kosovel and C. Rebora …brothels, prisons, barracks and factories, is a constricting symbol of deathand doom, and is typical of German expressionism, found mainly in Heym,but also Werfel, Trakl, Lichtenstein, Sack, van Hoddis and others. 16 Let mequote just two examples. In poem XIV (Le poesie 1913–1957, op. cit., p.27), the rainy city, where life is ‘a caged beast’, is a symbol of the poet beingtorn between sensuality and spirituality, between ‘flesh and heart’, aswell as of the conflict between the ‘rottenness’ of the times and a certainbrighter future, when the downfall and destruction of the poet’s generationwill create an ‘assorted knowledge’ and ‘immortal beauty’. 17 The city isquite often also a site of tragic loneliness, where the poet, absorbed in hisown papers and with ‘a gloomy face’, ponders in vain ‘the truth of life’,while he discerns in the distant street-noise the unattainable joy of ‘a passionatepoem’ and laughter of ‘men and women/ who build up their desiresduring work ‘ (ibid, LV, p. 93–4). 18 One should also mention that the poet’surban sites are very often denoted by or associated with typically expressionistattributes of rottenness, decay and collapse. Typical of Rebora’sMilan and its inhabitants are ‘rottenness’, ‘cloacae’, ‘mud’, ‘ruins’, ‘filth’,‘scab’, ‘dirt’, ‘garbage’, ‘swill’ 19 , and in his letters, the air in Milan ‘seemsstuffy and unclean as a patient’s bad breath’, whereas the city is depicted asan ‘enormous’ and ‘stinking belly’. 20In Kosovel’s poetry the expressionist topos of the city is much morecasual and indirect; he writes mainly of certain urban elements, like streets,coffee houses, black walls, houses, factories, towers (which normally carrythe symbolic valence of a metropolis), or urban characters like clubmenfrom the poem of the same title, a banker from Tragedy on the Ocean(Tragedija na oceanu), hairdressers, sociologists, analysts, critics of societyetc., who normally stand for a dehumanised man, set against a new, trueMan of the future. If Kosovel’s letters describe Ljubljana primarily as atown killing ‘With its fog and morality’ 21 , his poems often depict its coffeehouses as places of loneliness and absence of communication (Vis-à-vis ina Coffee House (Vis-à-vis v kavarni); Two People in a Coffee House (Dvačloveka v kavarni)). Its empty streets are symbols of meaninglessness (TheEvening before Winter (Večer pred zimo)); its loud streets, full of rushingpeople, stir feelings of alienation and the need for a liberating solitude (ACry for Solitude (Krik po samoti)); and factories and most of all the giganticwheels of their machinery symbolise a mechanised man-automaton(By a Giant Wheel (Ob orjaškem kolesu); Against Man (Proti človeku))or, inversely, represent the building of a new world (The Alarm (Alarm)).The metropolis, with its swaying houses and towers, is often a symbol of adying modern civilisation which will experience an unavoidable catharticcatastrophe, and then a new world (Ljubljana is Asleep (Ljubljana spi),Men with Crosses (Ljudje s križi), O, Sing the Vigils (O pojte vigilije), BlueHorses (Modri konji), From the Poles (Iz tečajev), The Ecstasy of Death(Eksta<strong>za</strong> smrti)): ‘The foundations were weak, my dear/ let the buildingsfall!’, says Kosovel in I Wish to Portray (Rad bi upodobil). 22As mentioned before, the polemic and negative attitude towards themodern world typical of expressionists was inseparable from feelings253
KOSOVEL’s poeticsof loneliness, alienation, inner disharmony and division, and existentialmeaninglessness. Kosovel and Rebora express similar sentiments in a greatnumber of poems and letters, and one cannot help but be overwhelmed inselecting the materials. I will therefore narrow the motif of tragic solitudeto the image of a tree, which is a true topos in expressionism. 23 Thus, inone of his poems, Kosovel compares himself to a tree, which stands ‘inthe middle of the fields’, amidst the rampage of the storm and streaks oflightning; just as lonely is the poet, who ‘stands amidst the world alone/and no-one knows his heart, his soul’; 24 and in the poem Give Me Grief(Daj mi bolest) Kosovel compares himself to ‘a black tree, which has burntout’ and is therefore sentenced to total isolation and marginalisation, becausein its ‘demise’ it can no longer rustle ‘with the evening winds’. 25 Asimilar motif is used by Rebora in a letter written in April 1910, where theauthor confides in a friend about his pain and loneliness: ‘I have sufferedand I still suffer immeasurably’; ‘I feel like a tree with no branches, whichhas become barren just as the spring is surging all around with its thousandtaunts and calls for a rebirth.’ 26With solitude comes a strong sense of alienation. Rebora portrayed it perhapsmost clearly in his later poetic series Curriculum vitae (1955), wherehe describes – as the title suggests – his life up to 1929, when he decided tobecome a priest. In the ninth poem or rather fragment of the series the poetcomplains of a ‘hidden error’ which he suffered since the pre-war years, ofa feeling that he had ‘missed the planet!’, that is, the world he was destinedto live in was totally and hopelessly foreign to him. 27 The poet and criticFranco Fortini has described alienation, which is one of the main themes ofRebora’s first collection, as a result of ‘evading reality’: 28 the poet’s alienationis caused by reality itself, absurdly evading him and withdrawing fromhim, as is clearly shown e.g. in the following lines: ‘Oh, the changing ofthings that I see/ and wish for!/ Oh, the changing of life that I feel/ and wishfor!/ … but what tempts me from afar/ then shuns me:/ and as I pass by, I amleft with nothing.’ 29 A similar description of such evading of reality and itsconsequences is also found in Kosovel, in a lyrical poem with the suggestivetitle Alone (Sam): ‘The world has shifted oddly far away/ you roam, youstray as if adrift/ all is washed away, but to where you do not know./ Oh, Iwould make my cry resound/ but then I am afraid I would be left alone/ andempty a thousand times.’ 30 As these lines demonstrate, the motif of lonelinessand alienation in Kosovel was frequently linked to the fear of silenceor, even worse, to the conventional and dishonest words that the poet consideredthe worst negation of any genuine human contact: when ‘everyonefor himself/ hides the failures of his searching’ (Gathered (Zbrani)), 31 when‘we speak enveloped/ hidden’, when ‘we are not open’ (The Tears of Masks(Solze mask)), 32 or when even ‘we do not hear/ our words’ (Poem fromChaos (Pesem iz kaosa)), 33 we are strangers to each other, which means wehave missed the first and foremost objective of Man.There is but a small step to total aimlessness. In proclaiming existentialmeaninglessness both poets are radical and cruelly explicit: ‘nothing,a dreadful nothing/ a chopped off stump’ 34 (A L.), says Rebora, who once254
Darja Betocchi: Analogies between S. Kosovel and C. Rebora …again uses the expressionist metaphor of a dead tree; and his idea is echoedby Kosovel: ‘Searching, striving/ in vain’ (A Pitiful life, I (Bedno življenje,I)). ‘From the silent emptiness grows Nothing’ (Evening before Winter(Večer pred zimo)). 35But what is of the essence in expressionism is the feeling of an innerdivide springing from the insoluble disharmony between the poet and theworld. The subject matter of a divi and disharmony is crucial, because thisconflict is the main source of expressionist art. With regard to this I willquote only two examples from Kosovel: the well-known beginning of MyPoem (Moja pesem), which reads like a programmatic manifesto for expressionistpoetry: ‘My poem is an explosion./ Disharmony. Wild corrosion’;and the equally indicative statement, ‘Conflict is the essence of thework of art’ (I Think (Mislim)). 36 In Rebora’s case, too, there is no shortageof statements, expressions and analyses of the poet’s inner contradictions,which are once again the main theme of his poetry, and at the same timethe main reason for it. According to the critic Valli, the ‘contradiction’ or‘the contrast between outer and inner, between appearance and essence,between sensual and spiritual, between limited and limitless’ is the mostobvious ‘constant in Rebora’s poetry’. 37 To express this conflict, the poetalmost obsessively uses the rhetorical figure of antithesis and most of all– as the critic Bandini points out in his central essay on Rebora’s linguisticexpressionism – comparisons based on juxtaposing abstract and concreteconcepts. 38 But like Kosovel, the poet was aware of the essence of and theinspiration for his poetry, as demonstrated by a letter of 1911: ‘I slam intocontrasts between the eternal and the transitory, between what I feel (andlove) and what I wish didn’t exist, between the possibility and embodiment,between the biddable and the elusive, between the roughness of a blacksmithand the temper of an impatient man.…If I ever publish my lyricalfragments – my scary poetry – they will let you feel all these contrasts.’ 39This –, in many ways extreme -, position of the dissociated subject,called for a cathartic solution, which in expressionist literature was twofold:it either came across as a glorification of the redemptive role of poetryand the prophetic function of the poet, or as a proclamation of the declineof the Western world and the birth of a new world and a new man.Kosovel approached the subject of Orphic revolt against meaninglessnessand chaos 40 and of the antagonistic and encouraging role of the poetin several poems 41 ; A Young Poet Stepped on Parnassus (Stopil je pesnikmlad na Parnas) is one of the most explicitly programmatic poems, inwhich the poet calls to the poet-pawns to step down from Parnassus, wherethe Muse ‘is quiet and withdrawn’, and fight: ‘I call on you, poet: Embrace/sharp rhythms, violence/ wake up, wake up/ from praying in silence!’ In thepoem In Front of the Barrier (Pred bariero) the call to fight is even moredirect: ‘brothers fighters, follow me onwards!’; at the same time, the verseintroduces the motif of the brotherhood of the People (with a capital P),who are given the great task of building the new world. Another manifestationof the typical expressionist motif of a new Man and human brotherhood– arising from the horrifying experience of World War I and some-255
KOSOVEL’s poeticshow anticipated by Werfel’s humanitarianism before and during the war(the titles of Werfel’s two poetry collections Wir sind, 1913, and Einander,1915, are indicative of this) – is the abandoning of the pronoun ‘I’ for theplural ‘we’, which Kosovel also employs,, for example in Our Chant (Našspev), where the plural ‘we’ once again carries the prophetic and activistthemes of ‘the anthem of the fight’ and of ‘passionate’, ‘untameable’fighters, with ‘the chaos of fire’ in their hearts. 42 A similar shift occurs inthe title of Rebora’s second collection, Anonimous Chants (Canti anonimi,op. cit.) published in 1922. Folco Portinari has explicitly linked the ‘anonymity’of Rebora’s chants to the poet’s tragic wartime experience, which‘inevitably led…to exceeding the personal dimension’, and to the need todepict ‘all the fortunes and misfortunes of the people of that time’. 43 As faras the Orphic subject matter goes, it is present in Rebora’s poems, but onlyas a distant echo. In poem. LXIII of the first collection (op. cit, p. 104–6),for example, poets are defined as ‘fighters’ and ‘heroes’ 44 , but in comparisonto Kosovel’s fighting poems, the content comes across rather vaguely.Similarly, the belief in the prophetic and liberating function of poetry is lesspersuasive and more abstract in Rebora than in Kosovel, although there isa somewhat hazy hint in poem. XLIX (ibid. p. 80–1) of the expressionistictopos of heading towards a great goal, which is the new world: ‘Oh poetry/…you are the fanfare/ the rhythm of our way/ …you are the joy/ whichgives courage/ …the certainty/ of the new day’. 45The motif of the ‘way’ is also present in a Rebora’s letter dating from1921, in which the poet confides in his brother: ‘I sometimes feel as if Iwas being called by someone, yet I don’t know by whom or why; and yetI go on my way […]’. 46 It seems therefore that Rebora, too, had a sense ofthe path that the new generation had to take, and the sense of the huge taskentrusted to the young who had lived through and survived the tragedy ofWorld War I: ‘As my time of averageness is running out’, he says in a poemwritten in 1926, ‘I am already waiting for a voice to sound out/ Clemente!Do not delay! Begin!/ Fulfil the task of man…’. 47 Once again, we can drawparallels with Kosovel, because – as Kralj points out – the typical elementsof the expressionist image of the ‘great way’ are present in his editorial inthe first issue of the Lepa Vida magazine published in 1922, We Sail Off inthe Spring! (Spomladi odjadramo). Kralj’s commentary on the text couldeasily relate to the two Rebora quotations: ‘There was probably no encouragementfrom the outside, the idea (of the ‘great way’ – author’s note) hadprobably developed in Kosovel congenially, due to similar spiritual andsocial conditions (as German expressionism – author’s note).’ 48The parallels in social and spiritual context indeed should not be overlooked,otherwise certain analogies between Kosovel’s and Rebora’s poetrywould be inexplicable, particularly when taking into consideration the radicaldifference or even antithesis of their psychology, world view and choicesin life. However, despite the radical differences in both authors, their expressionistphases chronologically and conceptually end in a surprisinglysimilar way – with a prophecy of a terrible disaster, which will give birth toa new world of brotherhood. Quite extraordinarily, both authors focused on256
Darja Betocchi: Analogies between S. Kosovel and C. Rebora …the motif of a disastrous flood: Kosovel in his cycle of poems entitled TheTragedy on the Ocean, which is possibly the high point of his expressionistlyrics, and Rebora in a poem with the very vague title of Verses (Versi)from – probably – 1926 or 1927. Let me conclude my comparison of motifsand subject matter in Kosovel’s and Rebora’s poetry by quoting the closingverses of Rebora’s poem: ‘The waters will subside/ from gentle homelands/what remained silent will now speak/ the paths will clear. // From the stuff ofthe old/ a new world will arise/ …A lot of hidden good/ dares not surface:/it waits for the heart to respond/ to the answer of man’, 49 , the eagerly anticipatedanswer of man being, of course, brotherhood. 50I continue with a few words on the stylistic characteristics of Kosovel’sand Rebora’s expressionist poetry. Kosovel uses numerous rhetorical andstylistic approaches also typical of German expressionism, e.g. explosivemetaphors, strong colour contrasts, the use of emotionally charged, intensiveverbs and generally strongly expressive imagery and words, geminationor doubling, even tripling of a word, a syntagm or even a verse,hyperbole and so on; 51 however, the form of the poems remains traditional.The true innovative form in Kosovel’s poetry only appears in his Consand Integrals phase, with the nominal style, catachrestic montage, and theuse of paralinguistic material; however, Kosovel’s source for these radicalinnovations was not so much German expressionism, as other Europeanavant-gardes. Significant in this context is the finding of Anton Ocvirk thatKosovel ‘differs from German expressionists in his simplicity and emotionalhonesty, because he is never inflated’ or ‘aggressively emotional’. 52And this is the most obvious difference between Kosovel’s and Rebora’sstyle. That is, the latter is inflated, and the poet’s statements are strainedand forced. The language is overwrought, its syntax twisted and morphologydeformed; the words fluctuate from stylistically neutral expressionsto incongruent archaisms, Danteisms, and technical terms. By his violenttreatment of the language, Rebora expresses his own spiritual division, andthe reader has the impression that the linguistic mutilation and distortionis a desperate attempt to materialise the spiritual and to spiritualise thematerial. Rebora’s sentences and words act as the linguistic equivalent ofthe deformed bodies and characters of expressionist paintings, or a stylisticpendant to the expressionist scream. The potentially soothing effect ofRebora’s equally traditional form 53 is even further dissipated by the richselection of imagery and metaphors, which respond to the expressionistprinciple of the aesthetics of ugliness.Is there, then, such a thing as Italian expressionism? With regard to whathas been discussed, one might respond in the following manner: we cannotspeak of a true Italian expressionist movement – in terms of historicalavant-garde, and also because Italian contemporaries were completely orlargely unaware of German expressionism. That, however, does not ruleout clear expressionist elements in the works of individual Italian authors,whose sometimes surprising analogies with German or Slovene expressionistscome from a common awareness of the cultural and historical crisisof Western civilisation at the time.257
KOSOVEL’s poeticsNOTES1C. Segre – C. Martignoni, Testi nella storia, La letteratura italiana dalle Originial Novecento, 4 – Il Novecento, Mondadori, Milan 2001, p. 492. The translations ofRebora’s verses are purely informative.2L. Kralj, Ekspresionizem (‘Expressionism’), DZS, Ljubljana 1986, p. 72.3C. Segre – C. Martignoni, p. 507. Among other expressionist-oriented ‘vociani’,critics normally mention Giovanni Boine and Piero Jahier, and occasionally anddefinitely marginally also Dino Campana and Scipio Slataper.4C. Rebora, Frammenti lirici, Libreria della Voce, Florence 1913; Cantianonimi, Il Convegno editoriale, Milan 1922; Poesie sparse (1913–1927), in:Clemente Rebora, Le Poesie (1913–1947), ed. Piero Rebora, Vallecchi, Florence1947; Lettere I (1893–1930), Edizioni di storia e letteratura, Rome 1976.Quotes from Rebora’s poems are from: C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957,All’insegna del pesce d’oro, Milan 1961.5S. Kosovel, ‘Kritika, gibalo življenja v umetnosti’ (‘Criticism, the drive of lifein art’), in: ZD, III, DZS 1977, p. 210.6Ibid., p. 12–20.7C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, p. 27.8C. Rebora, Lettere I (1893–1927), p. 327. In the original: ‘(Chi di noi potrà oavrà coraggio di rimanere), o finirà pazzo o espanderà un’enorme incandescen<strong>za</strong>’.9C. Rebora, Frammenti lirici.10Pietro Rebora, ‘Clemente Rebora e la sua prima formazione esistenzialista’,in: Clemente Rebora, All’insegna del pesce d’oro, Milan 1960, p. 88.11Cf. L. Kralj, Ekspresionizem (Expressionism), pp. 41 and 167.12S.Kosovel, ZD, III, op. cit. pp. 113–4.13S. Kosovel, ZD, II, DZS 1974, p. 33.14Ibid., p. 74.15C. Rebora, ‘Per un Leopardi mal noto’, in: Omaggio a Clemente Rebora,Bologna 1971, p. 153. It is interesting that Rebora’s polemics against themechanisation of human relations and society is very similar to the statement ofKurt Pinthus, the editor of the most widely-known anthology of expressionistpoetry (Menschheitsdämmerung. Symphonie jüngster Dichtung, 1920), who in hispreface ascribed the origins of the expressionist movement also to ‘human order,piled up in its entirety upon mechanicism and conventionality.” (quoted in: L. Kralj,Ekspresionizem, p. 20).16For the motif of the metropolis in German expressionism see: DeutscheGroβstadt – Lyrik vom Naturalismus bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Wolfgang wolfgang Rothe,Reclam, Stuttgart 1978, pp. 14–21.17In the original: ‘belva in una gabbia chiusa’, ‘il vario contrasto / della carne edel cuore’, ‘il marcio del tempo’, ‘un’eletta dottrina’, ‘un’immortale bellez<strong>za</strong>’.18 In the original: ‘ottenebrato / il mio volto’, ‘la verità della vita’, ‘canzoneappassionata’, ‘un rider sento d’uomini e di donne / che nel lavoro preparan levoglie’.19In the original: ‘il marcio’ (op. cit., XIV, str. 27), ‘fogna’ (X, 21), ‘fanghiglia’(VI, 15), ‘sfasciume’ (XXXVI, 58), ‘pattume’, ‘rogne’, ‘rifiuti’, ‘rivoli di spurghi’(LXIX, 114).20C. Rebora, Lettere I (1893–1930). In the original: ‘a Milano […], ove l’ariapare viziata e impura come il fiato di un’ammalata’ (p.5), ‘Milano che pare ora unventre enorme; e pute tosto che si risveglia’ (p. 29).21S. Kosovel, ZD, III, op. cit., p. 339.22S. Kosovel, ZD, II, op. cit., pp. 496–7.258
Darja Betocchi: Analogies between S. Kosovel and C. Rebora …23For the tree motif in Kosovel’s expressionist poetry, see: F. Zadravec, SrečkoKosovel 1904–1926, Lipa-ZTT, Koper-Trieste 1986, pp. 81–3.24Kakor drevo, ki se strele boji (‘Like a Tree Afraid of Lightning’), ZD, I, DZL,Ljubljana 1964, p. 127.25Ibid., p. 367.26C. Rebora, Lettere I (1893–1930), p. 63. In the original: ‘Ho sofferto e soffroindicibilmente’, ‘son rimasto come un albero sfrondato, che proprio ora si spogliae tutto isterilisce quando intorno gli fluttua la primavera con mille inviti e richiamidi rinascen<strong>za</strong>’.27C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, p. 278. In the original: ‘guasto occulto’, ‘hosbagliato pianeta!’.28F. Fortini, ‘Frammenti lirici di Clemente Rebora’, in: Letteratura italiana. Leopere, IV- Il Novecento, ed. A. Asor Rosa, Einaudi, Torino 1995, p. 246–55.29C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, poem LI, p. 87. In the original: ‘Oh il variardelle cose ch’io guardo, / e le vorrei! / Oh il variar della vita ch’io sento, / e la vorrei! /[…] quel che da lungi m’invita, / va sempre più in là: / e nulla è mio al passaggio.’30S. Kosovel, ZD, I, p. 358.31Ibid., p. 353.32S. Kosovel, ZD, II, p. 147.33Ibid., p. 159.34C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, p. 181. In the original: ‘Nulla, più nulla, /ceppo reciso’.35S. Kosovel, ZD, I, pp. 261, 297.36Ibid., p. 229 and ZD, III, p. 108.37D. Valli, Anarchia e misticismo nella poesia italiana del primo Novecento,Milella, Lecce, 1973, p. 288–9.38F. Bandini, ‘Elementi di espressionismo linguistico in Rebora’, in: Ricerchesulla lingua poetica contemporanea. Rebora, Saba, Ungaretti, Montale, Pavese,several autrhors, Quaderni del circolo filologico linguistico padovano, Padova1966, pp. 3–35.39C. Rebora, Le lettere I (1893–1930), pp. 105–6. In the original: ‘Mi sbattonel contrasto fra l’eterno e il transitorio, fra quello che sento (e amo) necessarioe quello che vorrei non fosse, fra la poten<strong>za</strong> e l’atto, fra la cosa conosciuta e illasciarla partire, fra la rozzez<strong>za</strong> del fabbro e la permalosità di un insofferente. […]S’io pubblicherò alcuni pochi frammenti lirici – orribili come poesia – rivedràcodesti contrasti.’40‘Chaos’ was one of the key words of expressionism, yet it only appears oncein Rebora’s works from this period – in a short poetic prose Fonte nella macerie (AWell Among the Ruins, 1915). The sentence goes: ‘Obelisco del caos, il campanilemuto’ (‘Obelisque of chaos, a mute campanile’), in: Le poesie 1913–1957, p. 197.41For the Orphic and prophetic subject matter in Kosovel’s poetry, see: F.Zadravec, Srečko Kosovel 1904–1926, pp. 117–22.42S. Kosovel, ZD, I, pp. 230, 243, 228.43F.Portinari, ‘Milano’, in: Letteratura italiana. Storia e geografia, III, L’etàcontemporanea, ed. A. Asor Rosa, Einaudi, Torino 1989, p. 261. In the original:‘(lo spettacolo tragico) può solo condurre […] a un superamento della dimensionepersonale’, ‘tutta la storia, di tutti gli uomini del suo tempo’.44In the original: ‘combattenti’, ‘eroi’.45In the original: ‘O poesia, / […] sei la fanfara / che ritma il cammino, / […] seila letizia / che incuora il vicino, / […] sei la certez<strong>za</strong> / del grande destino’.46C. Rebora, Le lettere I (1893–1930), p. 410. In the original: ‘Mi pare poi, avolte, d’essere chiamato, e non so da chi né per cosa; in ogni modo rispondo, em’incammino da qualche parte’.259
KOSOVEL’s poetics47C. Rebora, Le poesie 1913–1957, p. 190. In the original: ‘Mentre lavoro neimiei giorni scarsi, / mi pare deva echeggiar imminente / una gran voce chiamando:Clemente! / Per un’umana impresa ch’è da farsi…’48L. Kralj, Ekspresionizem, pp. 182–3.49C. Rebora, Poesie sparse (1913–1927), pp. 191–192. In the original:‘Decresceranno le acque, / emergeranno patrie pie, / parlerà ciò che più tacque,/ si chiariranno le vie. // Il vecchio mondo disfatto / materia al nuovo darà / […]C’è tanta bontà nascosta / che non osa uscir fuori: / attende s’aprano i cuori / aun’umana risposta.’50Ibid., p. 193.51For an analysis of Kosovel’s expressionist style, see: F. Zadravec, SrečkoKosovel 1904–1926, pp. 123–35.52S. Kosovel, ZD, II, note on p. 647.53For the problem of form in Rebora’s first collection, see: P. Giovannetti, ‘I‘Frammenti lirici’ di Clemente Rebora: questioni metriche’, in: ‘Autografo’, III,8, p. II–35. For Rebora’s linguistic expressionism, see: F. Bandini, ‘Elementi diespressionismo linguistico in Rebora’.• ABSTRACTUDK 821.131.1.09-1 Reboro C.:821.163.6.09-1 Kosovel S.Key words: Slovene poetry / Kosovel, Srečko / Italian poetry / Reboro,Clemente / expressionism / literary influencesAccording to contemporary Italian literary criticism, examples of both futurismand expressionism can be found in Italian literature. Segre and Martignonidetect explicit expressionist characteristics of style and theme in the work ofthe so-called ‘poeti vociani’, who were first published in the Florentine reviewLa voce (1908–1914, 1914–1916). In fact, they go as far as to say that “the best‘vociani’ represented the true literary avant-garde of the pre-WWI period (Testinella storia 4, La letteratura italiana dalle Origini al Novecento, 2001).” Theiropinion seems rather tendentious, if not ideologically biased, but one can equallyquestion the somewhat radical thesis of Kralj which claims a total absence ofexpressionistic texts in Italian literature (Lado Kralj, Ekspresionizem, 1986).A close analysis of the poems and letters of C. Rebora (1885-1957), one ofthe most eminent “poeti vociani”, puts such propositions about the existence ofItalian expressionism to the test. Comparing Rebora’s opus (up to 1926/27) withthe opus of S. Kosovel, I searched for any shared expressionist elements, takingthe three major expressionist themes as guideline clusters for my analysis:– an awareness of crisis and a revolt against modern civili<strong>za</strong>tion;– feelings of loneliness, solitude, existential meaninglessness, alienation,inner disharmony, loss of identity, in other words – “dissociation of the subject”.– responses to these feelings: either glorifying the poet’s prophetic functionand praising the soteriological role of poetry, or prophesying the demiseof European civili<strong>za</strong>tion, and announcing the birth of a new world and newhuman.260
Darja Betocchi: Analogies between S. Kosovel and C. Rebora …Rebora’s poetry deals with all these themes, revealing, at times, a strikingsimilarity with certain motifs in the poetry of Srečko Kosovel. Despite the factthat a stylistic analysis also confirms the thesis about Rebora’s expressionism,there is insufficient evidence to show that Rebora – along with other “vociani”poets – was familiar with German expressionism. This, on the contrary, cannotbe said of Kosovel.The lack of influence of German expressionists on the Italian “vociani” maybe explained first by the simultaneous appearance of the “vociani” poets andthe German expressionists on the literary scene; and second, by scant knowledgeof contemporary German literature among Italian writers at the time.Any possibility of German literature influencing the “vociani” poets shouldthus be excluded.To conclude: expressionism as a literary movement proper did not existin Italy. There were, however, decidedly expressionist elements in the workof certain authors. The surprising analogies observed between German andSlovenian expressionism can, on the other hand, be explained by a generalawareness of the cultural-historical crisis of Western civili<strong>za</strong>tion of the time.261
CONTRIBUTORSDarja Betocchi teaches Italian language and literature at the StateSecondary School France Prešeren in Trieste, and also translates Slovenianauthors into Italian (most recently Ballerina, ballerina by M. Sosič, Empoli2005). At the moment, she is writing a doctoral dissertation on the problemsof translating Kosovel’s poetry into Italian and, concurrently, his receptionwithin the Italian cultural environmentMarijan Dović is a Young Researcher at the Institute of Slovenian Literatureand Literary Sciences of the Scientific Research Centre of theSlovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. As a student he published papersin various magazines and science reviews and took part in conferences,concentrating mainly on the literary canon, the theory of evaluationand the contemporary systems theory of literature, as well as the historicalavant-garde. Recently he published a book entitled Sistemske in empiričneobravnave literature (2004). At the moment he is researching the problemsof authorship and the development of literary producer in Slovenian literarysystem. He also does editorial work and plays jazz.Alenka Jovanovski is a Young Researcher at the Department for ComparativeLiterature and Literary Theory of the Faculty of Arts of Ljubljana.She published papers in various magazines and science reviews, concentratingon the question of aesthetic experience and poetry in connection tothe mystic experience. In 2001 she published a book Temni gen. She alsowrites literary reviews, concentrating mainly on contemporary poetry.Marko Juvan is a Researcher at the Institute of Slovenian Literature andLiterary Sciences, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academyof Sciences and Arts, Professor of Literary Theory at the University ofLjubljana. Recent publications: Intertekstualnost (2000); “On Literariness:From Post-Structuralism to Systems Theory”, Comparative Literature andComparative Cultural Studies (2003); “O usodi ‘velikega’ žanra”, Kakopisati literarno zgodovino danes: <strong>razprave</strong>, ed. by D. Dolinar, M. Juvan(2003); “Literary Self-Referentiality and the Formation of the NationalLiterary Canon”, Neohelicon 31.1 (2004), “Spaces of Intertextuality,the Intertextuality of Space”, Literature and Space: Spaces of Transgressivenessed. by J. Škulj, D. Pavlič (2004); “Generic identity and intertextuality”,CLCWeb 7.1 (2005). Main fields of interest: literary andcultural theory (intertextuality, literary discourse, cultural identity, literaryfield, canon, literary historiography, genre criticism), European romanticism,20 th century Slovenian literature.Matevž Kos is an Assistant professor at the Department of ComparativeLiterature at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana. He has published four books:Prevzetnost in pristranost (1996), Kritike in refleksije (2000), Poskusi z
Nietzschejem: Nietzsche in ničejanstvo v slovenski literaturi (2003), Branjepo izbiri (2004). He has prepared and written introductions to several anthologies(Veno Taufer, Srečko Kosovel, Nietzsche, The Slovenian Essayin the Nineties, Mi se vrnemo zvečer: Antologija mlade slovenske poezije1990–2003). His interests include Nietzsche and Slovenian literature, literatureand philosophy, modernism and post-modernism, and contemporarySlovenian literature. He also writes literary reviews and essays. In the1990’s he was editor-in-chief of Literatura magazine.Boris . Novak is a poet, dramatist, essayist, translator, writer of children’sliterature, and professor at the Department of Comparative Literature andLiterary Theory at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana. In 1999 he has been avisiting professor of poetry at the University of Tennessee (Chattanooga) inthe USA. He has published 61 books, including many works of fiction. Hisspecial interests include comparative prosody (Po-etika forme, 1997, Sonet,2004), medieval and Renaisance literature and symbolism (Simbolističnalirika, 1997). His plays and poems have been translated into many languages.He also translates from French (Mallarmé, Valéry, Verlaine, Jabès),English (Seamus Heaney), Dutch (M. van Paemel) and Southern Slavoniclanguages (Josip Osti). He has published an extensive anthology of modernFrench lyric poetry and the first Slovenian selection of the lyric poetry ofOccitan troubadours. He has received many awards for his accomplishments,among them the ‘Zlati znak’ of the Scientific Research Centre,Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, for his work on the theory ofverse (1998).Darja Pavlič is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature at theDepartment of Slavonic Languages and Literature of the Faculty of Educationof the University of Maribor, where she teaches world literature and literarytheory. From 2003, she has been editor-in-chief and managing editor of thePrimerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> review, published by the Slovenian ComparativeLiterature Association. She published the book Funkcije podobja v poezijiK. Koviča, D. Zajca in G. Strniše (2003). Her main areas of research are:literary rhetoric, romanticism, modern poetry, and Slovenian poetry.Katia Pizzi is a graduate of Bologna and Cambridge. She currently lecturesat the Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies, School of AdvancedStudy, University of London. She has published extensively on literary,historical, and cultural-historical aspects relating to Trieste and the northeasternborders of Italy (see in particular her volume: A City in Search ofan Author: the Literary Identity of Trieste (2001). Her interests include culturalmemory, nationalism, the Futurist avant-garde (especially the visualand performing arts), and popular culture (especially comics and children’sliterature).Bożena Tokarz is a professor at the Institute of Slavic Philology at theUniversity of Silesia (Poland), head of the Department of Literary Theory
and Translation, a researcher of 20 th century Polish and Slovenian poetry.Her work is in comparative literature, the theory of literature and translation,and the history of poetics. She has written over a hundred treatises,articles, reviews and literary essays, published in Poland, Slovenia andelsewhere, about changes of art forms in a comparative perspective (amongothers in Slovenian and Polish poetry), the theory of translation, culturaldialogue in literature and literary criticism. Her major works include:Teoria literatury. metodologia badań literackich (1980; co-authored with:S. Zabierowski); Mit literacki. Od mitu rzeczywistości do zmiany substancjipoetyckiej (1983); Poetyka Nowej Fali (1990); Wzorzec, podobieństwo,przypominanie (1998); Między destrukcją a konstrukcją. O poezji SrečkaKosovela w kontekście konstruktywistycznym (2004).Janez Vrečko is a professor at the Department of Comparative Literatureand Literary Theory at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana. His special interestsinclude historical avant-gardes, the history of poetics, classical epos, tragedyand novel, literary theory, etc. He has published several books: Misel omoderni umetnosti (1981), Srečko Kosovel, slovenska zgodovinska avantgardain zenitizem (1986), Ep in tragedija (1994), Atiška tragedija (1997),Med antiko in avantgardo (2002, first re-print 2003). He has published over200 titles in scientific and academic journals nationally nd internationallyand attended many scientific conferences at home and aboard. He spentmore than two years studying and lecturing at universities abroad (Munich,Salzburg, Brussels, Vienna, Katowice).* * *The translations of Integrali are in part taken from: Srečko Kosovel, Manin a Magic Square. Translated by Nike Kocjančič Pokorn, Katarina Jerin,Philip Burt. Ljubljana: Myra Locatelli, k.d. and Mobitel, d. d., 2004.
Comparative Literature, Volume 28, Special Issue,ljubljana, June 200582.091(05)
Primerjalna <strong>književnost</strong> Issn 0351-1189Letnik 28/2005, posebna številka (Special Issue)Izdaja slovensko društvo <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong>Published by the Slovene Comparative Literature AssociationUredniški odbor (Editorial board): Darko Dolinar, Marko Juvan,Lado Kralj, Vid Snoj, Jola Škulj (vsi Ljubljana)Uredniški svet (Advisory council): Vladimir Biti (Zagreb), MilanV. Dimić (Edmonton), Erika Greber (München), Janko Kos,Aleksander Ska<strong>za</strong>, Neva Šlibar, Tomo Virk (vsi Ljubljana), GalinTihanov (Lancaster), Ivan Verč (Trst), Peter V. Zima (Celovec)Glavni in odgovorni urednik (Editor): Darja PavličNaslov uredništva (Editor’s Address): 1000 Ljubljana, Aškerčeva2Dokumentacijska oprema člankov: Seta KnopLikovna Oprema: Igor ResnikPrelom: Alenka MačekTisk: Vb&s D. O. O., Milana Majcna 4, Ljubljana© avtorjiIzhaja dvakrat na leto (cl is published twice a year).Naročila sprejema slovensko društvo <strong>za</strong> <strong>primerjalno</strong> <strong>književnost</strong>,1000 Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2.Cena številke: 1500 SIT.Transakcijski račun: 02010-0016827526 z oznako »<strong>za</strong> revijo«.Revija je vključena v:mla Directory of Periodicals: a guide to journals and seriesin languages and literatures. – New York : mlamla international bibliography of books and articles on the modernlanguages and literatures. – New York : mlaBibliographie de l’histoire Littéraire française. – StuttgartUlrich’s International periodicals directory. – New Providence :BowkerIbz and Ibr – Osnabrück: Saur VerlagRevija izhaja s podporo Javne agencije <strong>za</strong> raziskovalno dejavnost
Change language